tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67279752016-12-10T03:26:12.953+13:00GREENIE WATCH<img src="http://i.imgur.com/fll1V.jpg"><br>
<i><a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/">The CRU graph</a>. Note that it is calibrated in tenths of a degree Celsius and that even that tiny amount of warming started long before the late 20th century. The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees -- thus showing ZERO warming</i>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.comBlogger4509125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-68179821394514197052016-12-09T01:29:00.001+13:002016-12-09T01:29:25.854+13:00<br /><br /><b>Meteorologist tries to debunk Breitbart</b><br /><br /><i>The point she made is an old one and already well answered. &nbsp;The fall in temperature was NOT found only in the satellite record. &nbsp;There were similar falls in other measures. &nbsp;See <a href="https://cliscep.com/2016/12/03/vilifying-rose-a-tale-of-two-standards/">here</a>. And the land-based record is important precisely because it shows changes first, before the ocean does. &nbsp;There is more thermal inertia in the oceans but the ocean surface moves in the same direction as the land surface. &nbsp;So the land record is predictive of overall cooling, which was the point. &nbsp;The lady is just a pretty face</i><br /><br /><br />AN ATMOSPHERIC scientist has delivered a scathing response to alt-right website Breitbart for trying to use a video “with my face on it” to back its misleading views on climate change.<br /><br />Kait Parker, from the US cable show The Weather Channel, recorded a video debunking Breitbart’s claims saying: “Here’s the thing — science doesn’t care about your opinion”.<br /><br />“Cherry picking and twisting the facts will not change the future, nor the fact ... that the Earth is warming,” Ms Parker says in the video published on Tuesday.<br /><br />Ms Parker’s response was prompted by a Breitbart article that suggested global warming was nothing but a scare and that global temperatures were actually falling.<br /><br />“Problem is they used a completely unrelated video of la nina with my face in it to attempt to back their point,” she said.<br /><br />“What’s worse is that the US committee on space, science and technology actually tweeted it out.”<br /><br />The climatologist then proceeded to completely dismantle Breitbart’s article, debunking the conclusions it makes.<br /><br />She said one claim that global land temperatures had plummeted by one degree since the beginning of this year was based on one satellite estimate, and when land temperatures were combined with sea surface temperatures, you actually get a record high temperature.<br /><br />“Land temperatures aren’t an appropriate measure, the Earth is 70 per cent water and water is where we store most of our heat energy,” she said.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/scientist-delivers-scathing-response-to-breitbart-article/news-story/fe66304f61f167c6a911e1cf8a51d6a9">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Record Ice Growth In Greenland Continues</b><br /><br /><i>Greenland is the only part of the Arctic where ice-cover matters. &nbsp;The rest of the Arctic is floating ice -- which does not raise the water level if it melts</i><br /><br />Greenland’s surface has been gaining about three billion tons of ice every day since September 1, blowing away all prior records for ice gain.<br /><br /><img src="http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-07-at-1.45.56-AM-768x426.png" /><br /><br />Meanwhile, fake news sites like the Guardian continue to lie about Greenland (and everything else.)<br /><br /><a href="http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/record-ice-growth-in-greenland-continues/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>EPA pick finalized</b><br /><br /><i>And the Green/Left are wailing. &nbsp;See below:</i><br /><br />It’s official: Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, the person who has wrote this year that “debate is far from settled” about climate change, has been selected by President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team as the future administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.<br /><br />Folks who care about the future of the planet may spew out a sigh of relief; famed climate change denier Myron Ebell, who’s heading the EPA transition team and was rumored to head the EPA, won’t take the helm.<br /><br />They shouldn’t. Ebell may be paid by fossil fuel companies to spread lies about the science of global warming, but Pruitt does something objectively worse: He is paid by fossil fuel companies to wage an all-out war on environmental regulation with American tax dollars.<br /><br />As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt has sued the EPA several times over incoming regulations dealing with air quality and pollution. His challenges deal not only with rules limiting the greenhouse gas emissions that cause the planet to warm up, but also more local public health concerns like soot and particulate emissions that lead to smog pollution. He’s lost every time.<br /><br />What will happen when EPA’s most powerful enemy is in the captain’s seat? We’re about to find out.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.inverse.com/article/24885-scott-pruitt-epa-donald-trump-myron-ebell">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>UK slashes number of Foreign Office climate change staff</b><br /><br />The UK has cut the number of Foreign Office staff working on climate change, despite ministers arguing the issue should be a top foreign policy priority.<br /><br />The Liberal Democrats said it was “appalling” and sent “the wrong signals” to the world, after a minister revealed the figures in a recent parliamentary answer.<br /><br />Experts said that with Donald Trump promising to roll back international climate efforts and with 2016 set to be the hottest on record, it was a bad time to cut back.<br /><br />In London, the number of staff working full time on climate change is down by more than two thirds, from 26 in July 2013 to eight now. Overseas, the figure is down from 177 in March 2013 to 149 today.<br /><br />The UK’s climate change diplomacy is respected internationally, and was seen as playing an important role in the run-up to the Paris agreement, which was agreed in France last year and recently came into force.<br /><br />Baroness Anelay of St Johns, minister of state for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), said last year: “Climate change is not only a threat to the environment but to global security and economic prosperity. That therefore makes it a top priority not only for environment ministers but foreign ministers too.”<br /><br />Questions were raised by former ministers about the UK’s commitment to leadership on climate change when the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) was abolished and merged into the business department in the summer, a move former Labour leader Ed Miliband branded “plain stupid”.<br /><br />Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem environment spokesperson, said: “It’s appalling that the number of people working on climate change in the Foreign Office has been substantially reduced, especially now that the Decc has been disbanded.<br /><br />“It sends all the wrong signals about this government’s commitment to tackling our biggest global threat, and undermines the work being done to encourage other nations to take action.”<br /><br />British diplomatic efforts on climate change have in the past included trying to influence macro economic policy in China to encourage its economy to cut carbon, and pressing the US intelligence community on the risk global warming poses to security. But the Foreign Office’s prioritisation of climate change has been “chipped away” in recent years, say observers.<br /><br />“This is not a good time to be cutting back on Foreign Office staff working on climate change,” said Tom Burke of thinktank E3G, who was adviser to the FCO’s top climate envoy until 2012.<br /><br />“At a recent private meeting in the state department, the US climate envoy again emphasised how important Britain’s climate diplomacy was in driving forward ambition on climate change. As Trump turns the US back into a climate laggard, rather than the leader it has become, our role in building on Paris becomes essential.”<br /><br />He said the UK’s leverage in international climate negotiations was a result of the Foreign Office’s capability to shape conversations on climate change in capitalcities around the world.<br /><br />A government spokeswoman said: “The UK’s commitment and leadership on climate action, internationally and domestically, is as strong as ever and we are recognised as the second best country in the world for tackling climate change.<br /><br />“We take a whole of government approach to our climate change ambitions so that we can benefit from the low carbon transition in our industrial strategy as we deliver an economy that works for all.”<br /><br /><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/07/uk-slashes-number-of-foreign-office-climate-change-staff">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science</b><br /><br />By Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert<br /><br />Before I start, let me say as clearly as possible that I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. If science says something is true – according to most scientists, and consistent with the scientific method – I accept their verdict.<br /><br />I realize that science can change its mind, of course. Saying something is “true” in a scientific sense always leaves open the option of later reassessing that view if new evidence comes to light. Something can be “true” according to science while simultaneously being completely wrong. Science allows that odd situation to exist, at least temporarily, while we crawl toward truth.<br /><br />So when I say I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change, I’m endorsing the scientific consensus for the same reason I endorsed Hillary Clinton for the first part of the election – as a strategy to protect myself. I endorse the scientific consensus on climate change to protect my career and reputation. To do otherwise would be dumb, at least in my situation.<br /><br />As regular readers of this blog already know, human brains did not evolve to understand reality in any deep way. If some of us survive and procreate, that’s good enough for evolution. It doesn’t matter that you live in a movie that says you will reincarnate after you die, while I live in a movie that says reality is a software simulation, and perhaps our mutual friend lives in a movie in which his prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse. Those are very different realities, but it doesn’t stop any of us from procreating. &nbsp;This lesson about the subjective nature of reality is one we learned from watching Trump’s march to the election. As the world looked on, everything they thought they understood about Trump’s chances dissolved in front of them. And yet the world still worked fine.<br /><br />This perceptual change in humanity is happening as I predicted it would a year before Trump won. I told you he would change more than politics. I said he would open a crack in reality so you could view it through a new filter. That transformation is well underway. I’ll widen the crack a bit more today.<br /><br />If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you know they always take the following trajectory: Climate science believers state that all the evidence, and 98% of scientists, are on the same side. Then skeptics provide links to credible-sounding articles that say the science is bunk, and why. How the heck can you – a non-expert – judge who is right?<br /><br />You probably are not a scientist, and that means you can’t independently evaluate any of the climate science claims. You didn’t do the data collection or the experiments yourself. You could try to assess the credibility of the scientists using your common sense and experience, but let’s face it – you aren’t good at that. So what do you do?<br /><br />You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you. And the majority says climate science is real and we need to do something about it. But how reliable are experts, even when they are mostly on the same side?<br /><br />Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president. Ask the experts who said the government’s historical “food pyramid” was good science. Ask the experts who used to say marijuana was a gateway drug. Ask the experts who used to say sexual orientation is just a choice. Ask the experts who said alcoholism is a moral failure and not a matter of genetics.<br /><br />There are plenty of examples where the majority of experts were wrong. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong. Let’s dig into that question.<br /><br />It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:<br /><br />1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.<br /><br />2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.<br /><br />3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models.<br /><br />4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career.<br /><br />5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest.<br /><br />6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.<br /><br />One of the things that always fascinated me about jury trials is that attorneys from both sides can sound so convincing even though the evidence points in only one direction. A defendant is either guilty or innocent, but good lawyers can make you see it either way. Climate science is similar. I’ve seen airtight arguments that say climate science is solid and true, and I’ve seen equally credible-looking arguments that say it is bunk. From my non-scientist perspective, I can’t tell the difference. Both sides look convincing to me.<br /><br />As I have described in this blog before, I’m a trained hypnotist and I have studied the methods of persuasion for years. That gives me a bit of context that is different from the norm. In my experience, and based on my training, it is normal and routine for the “majority of experts” to be completely wrong about important stuff. But in the two-dimensional world where persuasion isn’t much of a thing, it probably looks to most of you that experts are usually right, especially when they are overwhelmingly on the same side and there is a mountain of confirming evidence.<br /><br />We like to think we arrived at our decisions about climate science by using our common sense and good judgement to evaluate the credibility of experts. Some of you think you have superior sources of information as well. But both sides are wrong. No one is using reason, facts, or common sense to arrive at a decision about climate science. Here’s what you are using to arrive at your decision:<br /><br />1. Fear<br /><br />2. Unwarranted trust in experts<br /><br />3. Pattern recognition<br /><br />On the question of fear, if you believe that experts are good at predicting future doom, you are probably scared to death by climate change. But in my experience, any danger we humans see coming far in the future we always find a way to fix. We didn’t run out of food because of population growth. We didn’t run out of oil as predicted. We didn’t have a problem with the Year 2000 bug, and so on. I refer to this phenomenon as the Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters. When we see a disaster coming – as we do with climate science – we have an unbroken track record of avoiding doom. In the case of climate change danger, there are a number of technologies under development that can directly scrub the atmosphere if needed.<br /><br />On the question of trusting experts, my frame of reference is the field of influence and persuasion. From my point of view – and given the examples of mass delusion that I have personally witnessed (including Trump’s election), I see experts as far less credible than most people assume.<br /><br />And when it comes to pattern recognition, I see the climate science skeptics within the scientific community as being similar to Shy Trump Supporters. The fact that a majority of scientists agree with climate science either means the evidence is one-sided or the social/economic pressures are high. And as we can plainly see, the cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist.<br /><br />While it is true that a scientist can become famous and make a big difference by bucking conventional wisdom and proving a new theory, anything short of total certainty would make that a suicide mission. And climate science doesn’t provide the option of total certainty.<br /><br />To put it another way, it would be easy for a physicist to buck the majority by showing that her math worked. Math is math. But if your science depends on human judgement to decide which measurements to include and which ones to “tune,” you don’t have that option. Being a rebel theoretical physicist is relatively easy if your numbers add up. But being a rebel climate scientist is just plain stupid. So don’t expect to see many of the latter. Scientists can often be wrong, but rarely are they stupid.<br /><br />To strengthen my point today, and in celebration of my reopening of the blog commenting section, please provide your links to pro and con arguments about climate science. This might be the only place in the world you will see links to both sides. If you want to be amazed, see how persuasive BOTH sides of this debate are.<br /><br />As I said above, I accept the consensus of climate science experts when they say that climate science is real and accurate. But I do that to protect my reputation and my income. I have no way to evaluate the work of scientists.<br /><br />If you ask me how scared I am of climate changes ruining the planet, I have to say it is near the bottom of my worries. If science is right, and the danger is real, we’ll find ways to scrub the atmosphere as needed. We always find ways to avoid slow-moving dangers. And if the risk of climate change isn’t real, I will say I knew it all along because climate science matches all of the criteria for a mass hallucination by experts.<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-2971048765071271442016-12-08T01:32:00.001+13:002016-12-08T01:32:24.106+13:00<br /><br /><b>'Remarkable year': What's behind the record low sea ice in Antarctica?</b><br /><br />Above is the heading on an article by Peter Hannam appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/remarkable-year-whats-behind-the-record-low-sea-ice-in-antarctica-20161125-gsxo4p.html">on Nov. 27</a>. I dealt with it &nbsp;<a href="http://antigreen.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/arctic-warming-claim-amusing.html">on Nov. 29th.</a>, using logic alone. <br /><br />But <a href="http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/peter-hannam-australias-top-junk-science-journalist/">Tony Heller</a> has now attacked it using 20th century climate history, which is his specialty. &nbsp;He shows that the principal area of recent sea-ice loss is a polynya (big hole) in the ice of the Weddel sea. &nbsp;He then goes on to show that a very similar hole in the same place also occurred in 1976, when it was attributed to global cooling<br /><br /><img src="http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/S_daily_extent-2.gif" /><br /><br /><img src="http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-06-at-2.04.05-AM.png" /><br /><br />So which is it? &nbsp;Does a polynya prove global warming or global cooling? &nbsp;Neither, of course. &nbsp;It is just one of the natural phenomena that we do not understand -- though a guess that it is due to an underwater volcano would probably not be far off. &nbsp;There is a lot of underwater vulcanism at both poles.<br /><br />Tony also has fun with another claim in the Peter Hannam article that reported ice loss in the Northern hemisphere too. &nbsp;In commenting on that ice loss, Peter said: &nbsp;"With less ice to reflect the sun's radiation to space, more heat is absorbed by the oceans, added to the warming".<br /><br />Tony's reply to that was crushing on two grounds: "If Peter actually knew anything about the earth, he would know that the sun doesn’t shine in the Arctic in November – and open water in the Arctic Ocean in November allows heat to escape to the much colder air."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Fracking-Contaminated Groundwater: The Myth that Failed</b><br /><br />The myth that hydraulic fracturing, commonly called “fracking,” of oil and natural gas is responsible for the widespread, systemic contamination of groundwater (the stuff you drink) is one that is proving tremendously hard to kill. Like a hoard of Birkenstock-and-white-sock-wearing terminators—and here I paraphrase the film—proponents of fracking bans can’t be bargained with, can’t be reasoned with, can’t feel pity or remorse or fear, and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until fracking is dead.<br /><br />No matter how many blows they get dealt, they keep on coming. No matter what the scientific literature says, they will not stray from their mission.<br /><br />When you recognize you are dealing with people who consider the piffle in an anti-fracking piece of Manichaean agitprop like the film Gasland to be holy writ, this isn’t very surprising. The problem, however, is not that the congregation believes these things (cultists gonna cult); the problem is your average layman, who does not follow this issue too closely, is also susceptible to believing these things.<br /><br />Simply put, despite their hysterical claims and protestations to the contrary, the existing scientific evidence shows hydraulic fracturing processes do not pose a systemic impact on groundwater. The latest blow comes from Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), which released a final report earlier this month on drilling activity near the town of Pavillion.<br /><br />A December 2011 draft report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that hinted at a link between drilling and water contamination turned Pavillion into a locus of the hydraulic fracturing debate, despite then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stating after the report’s release, “… in no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.” EPA officials also expressed concern internally over the “inflammatory and irresponsible” media coverage of the report.<br /><br />After EPA’s handling of the testing was criticized by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey, among others, EPA turned the investigation over to DEQ in 2013.<br /><br />The DEQ report concluded drilling activity did not contaminate well water there and that any contaminants found in those wells were likely to be naturally occurring. Further, the monitoring wells EPA drilled were done incorrectly, and the agency itself accidentally introduced the very contaminants that it later detected and reported on.<br /><br />“Evidence does not indicate that hydraulic fracturing fluids have risen to shallow depths utilized by water-supply wells,” states the report’s accompanying fact sheet. “Also, based on an evaluation of hydraulic fracturing history, and methods used in the Pavillion Gas Field, it is unlikely that hydraulic fracturing has caused any impacts to the water-supply wells.”<br /><br />The DEQ report is no lone wolf. Since 2010, there have been at least 15 of these peer-reviewed studies have been produced, including ones by the Bureau of Economic Geology at the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas-Austin, the Department of Geology at the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Cincinnati, the California Council on Science and Technology and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, and Germany’s Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources.<br /><br />The most noteworthy of these is a multi-year study conducted by the EPA itself. Released in June 2015, the study is widely considered to be the most exhaustive research to date on the subject of hydraulic fracturing. The EPA researchers found fracking has not led to systemic impacts on drinking water, stating, “the number of cases where drinking water resources were impacted is small relative to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.”<br /><br />The fracking process has transformed the energy outlook of the United States over the past decade, and the rise of shale gas as a replacement for coal has been primarily responsible for the United States now enjoying its lowest level of carbon-dioxide emissions since 1989. The oil and natural gas hydraulic fracturing has enabled us to exploit are cost-effective and abundant, and they can ensure the United States is the world’s largest energy producer well beyond the 21st century.<br /><br />Federal, state, and local governments have tested thousands of sites for hydraulic fracturing pollution of groundwater and drinking water resources. Flatly, there is no scientific justification for banning hydraulic fracturing or over-regulating it out of existence over concern for groundwater contamination. Regulation should only be based on the best available scientific literature, not on wild, unfounded claims of based on misinformation, fear, and superstition.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/12/06/fracking-contaminated_groundwater_the_myth_that_failed_110135.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>EPA May Finally Have to Answer for the Animas River Spill</b><br /><br />Remember when the Environmental Protection Agency caused a discharge of 3 million gallons of toxic water into the Animas River, and no one was held accountable? Now the Supreme Court is getting involved.<br /><br />The toxic spill occurred in August 2015 when EPA workers accidentally caused a leak in an abandoned mine near Durango, Colorado.<br /><br />Contaminants spread into vital water sources that serve Colorado, New Mexico, and the Navajo Nation. The Animas River provides water for drinking, farming, ranching, and tourism in those places.<br /><br />New Mexico and Colorado are both suing the EPA, and now the Supreme Court has asked the acting solicitor general of the United States, Ian H. Gershengorn, to weigh in on the pending litigation.<br /><br />This request represents one more chance for the government, and possibly the Trump administration, to hold the EPA accountable for its fiasco.<br /><br />Accidents by private parties that are remarkably similar to the Animas River spill have led to criminal prosecutions in the past. Consider an example from Alaska:<br /><br />[One] back-hoe operator accidentally struck an oil pipeline in Alaska in 1994, and 1,000 to 5,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Skagway River. The Environmental Protection Agency had his supervisor—who was at home and off-duty at the time of the accident—criminally prosecuted for negligent discharge under the Clean Water Act.<br /><br />A district court sentenced him to six months in prison, another six months in a halfway house, another six months on supervised release, and imposed a $5,000 fine.<br /><br />The article goes on:<br /><br />A second back-hoe operator accidentally struck open the flooded Gold King Mine of Colorado in August 2015, and 3,000,000 gallons of yellow water laced with mercury, lead, and other toxic heavy metals spilled into the Animas River—a regional source of water for drinking and irrigation. The EPA worked to contain the spill, but it held no one accountable.<br /><br />The main difference, of course, is the second back-hoe operator happened to work for the EPA.<br /><br />In October, the Office of the Inspector General, which investigates waste, fraud, and abuse within federal agencies, told congressional staff that “it had found evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the EPA” in relation to the Animas River spill. That included “providing false statements in a criminal investigation and violation of the Clean Water Act.”<br /><br />But the Department of Justice refused to do anything about it, despite the fact that it routinely goes after private parties for relatively trivial acts, such as the Skagway River spill mentioned above, and a separate incident involving the discharge of “1,000 gallons of sewage into a ditch connected to a local reservoir.”<br /><br />Taking the EPA to Task<br /><br />The New Mexico attorney general and the Navajo Nation did what the federal government refused to do: “hold [the agency] to the same standards that [it] would anyone that would have created this situation,” something that EPA Regional Director Shaun McGrath had promised the agency would do right after the spill occurred.<br /><br />Both New Mexico and the Navajo Nation sued the EPA in federal court. Specifically, New Mexico filed suit against the EPA, Gina McCarthy in her official capacity as EPA administrator, the EPA’s excavation contractor, and several mining companies, requesting “full and just compensation” for the environmental and economic damage caused by the EPA’s spill.<br /><br />The Navajo Nation’s complaint argued that “after one of the most significant environmental catastrophes in history, the Nation and the Navajo people have yet to have their waterways cleaned, their losses compensated, their health protected, or their way of life restored.”<br /><br />New Mexico Sues Colorado<br /><br />New Mexico also sued the state of Colorado in the Supreme Court, claiming that the EPA’s spill “was the coup de grâce of two decades of disastrous environmental decision-making by Colorado, for which New Mexico and its citizens are now paying the price.”<br /><br />New Mexico argues that Colorado should be held responsible for lingering pollution at several mine sites, and for the “hazardous conditions” that led to the EPA turning the Animas River yellow.<br /><br />As part of the long, complex history of regional mines, some Colorado government officials authorized a mining company to plug drainage tunnels below several mines, causing “the mine’s tunnels and workings [to] fill with potentially billions of gallons of water, essentially transforming the mine into an enormous wastewater storage facility.”<br /><br />US Supreme Court: What Does the Executive Branch Think?<br /><br />Now the Supreme Court has asked Gershengorn to file a brief in New Mexico v. Colorado expressing the Obama administration’s views on the matter. The solicitor general represents the executive branch in litigation before the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The Supreme Court’s request is important because the EPA is ultimately responsible for the Animas River spill. This request provides a further opportunity to discover unpublished facts about the cause of the Animas River spill.<br /><br />President Barack Obama’s Justice Department has refused to prosecute anyone at the EPA, which sends a clear signal as to what it thinks on the matter.<br /><br />On Oct. 12, members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Natural Resources sent a stinging letter to the Justice Department.<br /><br />“By not taking up the case,” the congressmen wrote, Justice officials “give the appearance of hypocrisy, and seem to indicate that there is one set of rules for private citizens and another for the federal government. The EPA disaster deserves the same level of accountability to which private citizens are held.”<br /><br />But on Friday, Jan. 20, there will be a new administration at the helm of the Justice Department. And this new administration might have a new perspective on the matter.<br /><br />If Obama’s DOJ does not act before Jan. 20, a Trump DOJ could send the Supreme Court a brief with a very similar opinion to what Congress and the public have expressed. And the EPA might have to publicly defend its actions before Congress again.<br /><br />That could become tougher for the agency, because its sole defense for the ongoing lack of accountability is invalid.<br /><br />The EPA’s Special Pleading<br /><br />At a June oversight hearing, members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works asked Cynthia Giles, head of the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, why the agency had not taken action against any parties responsible for the spill.<br /><br />Giles stated that “law and enforcement distinguishes between the company who makes and releases pollution and the entities that are trying to respond and clean up pollution that other people created.”<br /><br />But the EPA is wrong. For proof, read the text of the Clean Water Act, the implementing regulations, and opinions by the Supreme Court and two federal circuits. They all make clear that the government is subject to the Clean Water Act in the same manner as private parties.<br /><br />The only basis for the EPA’s position is a 2012 EPA memorandum co-authored by Giles herself. But the EPA cannot exempt itself from federal criminal law.<br /><br />Perhaps the solicitor general will agree. According to their October letter, key members of Congress certainly do.<br /><br />Thus, the Supreme Court’s request for the solicitor general to get involved provides more opportunity for the federal government to make a choice: Either stop criminally prosecuting private parties for mere accidents, or hold its own actors to the same standards and penalties.<br /><br /><a href="http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/05/epa-may-finally-have-to-answer-for-the-animas-river-spill/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>California's New Cow Fart Regulations Totally Stink</b><br /><br />New law aims to reduce bovine flatulance, but will the cows obey?<br /><br />Livestock are responsible for roughly 15 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, but if you think getting people to stop driving their cars or using electricity is a difficult task, good luck preventing cows from farting.<br /><br />California is going to try.<br /><br />"This bill curbs these dangerous pollutants and thereby protects public health and slows climate change," said Gov. Jerry Brown said in a statement when he signed the bill in September, against the wishes of the state's farmers.<br /><br />The law won't stop cows from farting, of course, because cows are notoriously disrespectful of human-passed laws. Instead, it will make life more difficult for dairy farmers in California.<br /><br />Dairy farms will be required to reduce methane emissions to 40 percent below their 2013 levels by 2030. The state will spend $50 million help offset the cost of so-called "dairy digesters," which are intended to capture methane spewed from cows and convert it into electricity. After that, the state's Air Resources Board will have the authority to set whatever regulations they deem necessary to reach the stated goal.<br /><br />Cow farts—or "bovine entric fermentation" if you want to sound smart—pump a lot of methane into the environment. A single cow can produce up to 130 gallons of methane in a single day (even that's not as bad as what dinosaur farts could do), and methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.<br /><br />Even if California were to find a way to stop cows from farting—or, more likely, if it were to regulate all its dairy farms out of existence—there would be a miniscule impact on global methane levels. California isn't even the leading producer of agricultural methane in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.<br /><br />On a global scale, the tiny microbes that grow on the roots of rice plants produce 30 percent of all agricultural methane on Earth.<br /><br />California's not the first to target cows in an effort to rein-in global warming. Some ethical vegetarian groups have allied with global warming activists to call for reducing the number of cows in Africa.<br /><br />The attack on dairy cows is part of a broader effort to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Doing that means giving a lot more power ot the state's Air Resources Board, which now finds itself in the business of regulating what comes out of bovine buttocks. According to an Associated Press report this week, the board is hoping California's proposal will be a model for other states to follow.<br /><br /><a href="http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/30/californias-new-cow-fart-regulations-tot">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Rolling back environmental progress?</b><br /><br /><i>Having achieved major goals, US should refocus EPA and other environmental agencies</i><br /><br />Paul Driessen<br /><br />Donald Trump plans to “roll back progress” on climate change, energy and the environment, activists, regulators and their media allies assert. The claim depends on one’s definition of “progress.”<br /><br />These interest groups define “progress” as ever-expanding laws, regulations, bureaucracies and power, to bring air and water emissions of every description down to zero, to prevent diseases that they attribute to manmade pollutants and forestall “dangerous manmade climate change.” Achieving those goals requires controlling nearly every facet of our economy, industries, lives, livelihoods and living standards.<br /><br />If we are talking about halting and reversing this unbridled federal control, President-Elect Trump has promised to roll “progress” back – and not a moment too soon, if we are to rejuvenate our economy.<br /><br />Federal land, resource and environmental agencies have unleashed tsunamis of regulations in recent years, and President Obama is poised to issue many more before January 20. The total cost of complying with federal rules was about $1 trillion annually in 2006. It has since doubled, raising the federal reporting and compliance burden to $6,000 per person per year, through late-2016.<br /><br />The Obama Administration has thus far imposed some $743 billion of those new costs, via 4,432 new rules requiring 754 million hours of paperwork, according to a new American Action Forum analysis. The $2 trillion cumulative annual tab is more than all federal individual and corporate taxes collected in 2015; includes 10 billion hours dealing with paperwork; and does not include state or local regulations. Land use and environmental compliance costs account for a sizable and growing portion of this total.<br /><br />These costs hogtie innovation, job creation and economic growth. They make millions unemployed.<br /><br />So let us examine “progress” against two other standards: (1) pollution reductions to date; and (2) the validity of claims used to justify ever more burdensome and expensive environmental regulations.<br /><br />We can never have zero pollution. The laws of diminishing returns increasingly come into play: getting rid of the last 10% can cost as much as eliminating the initial 90% and is rarely needed. And we cannot control nature’s pollution: volcanoes, forest fires, poisonous algae blooms, deep ocean vents, erosion of rocks bearing mercury and other toxic substances, and other sources.<br /><br />However, we can reach the point where remaining pollutants pose few or no health risks – and we have largely done so. Since 1970, America’s cars have eliminated nearly 99% of pollutants that once came out of tailpipes, notes Air Quality in America co-author Joel Schwartz. Refiners have eliminated lead from gasoline and reduced its sulfur content by some 95% – while coal-fired power plants now remove 80-95% of the particulates, mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide that they emitted in 1970.<br /><br />Asthma may be rising, but it’s certainly not because of pollution rates that have fallen dramatically.<br /><br />Water quality has also skyrocketed. Along the river where I grew up in Wisconsin, a dozen pairs of bald eagles now nest where there were none when I was a kid, when you couldn’t eat the fish or swim in the polluted water. The same thing happened across the USA. Other problems remain to be addressed.<br /><br />As President-Elect Trump has quipped, “It used to be that cars were made in Flint, and you couldn’t drink the water in Mexico. Now our cars are made in Mexico, and you can’t drink the water in Flint.”<br /><br />That’s because local officials and the USEPA didn’t do their jobs – didn’t monitor or fix failing, corroded lead water pipes. Repairing Flint’s system, and addressing water and sewer problems in other cities, will cost billions of dollars. If we are forced to spend tens or hundreds of billions on exaggerated, fabricated or imaginary risks, there will be little left to resolve our remaining real health problems.<br /><br />Let us celebrate our progress, and turn our attention to real problems that still must be corrected. Let us also examine claims used to justify regulations – and roll back rules that don’t pass scientific muster.<br /><br />EPA insists that saving fuel and reducing pollution from now super-clean vehicles requires that cars and light trucks get 54.5 mpg by 2025. But achieving this will force people to drive smaller, lighter, more plasticized, less safe cars – and millions more will be maimed and killed. EPA doesn’t mention that, or acknowledge that fracking ensures another century of oil and gasoline: time to devise new energy sources.<br /><br />Above all, though, the Environmental Protection Agency’s reason for being, for wanting to steadily expand its budget and personnel, for seeking to regulate our farms, factories, homes and energy supplies, for trying to drive entire industries into bankruptcy – is its assertion that humans are causing catastrophic climate change, thereby endangering human health and welfare. The claims do not withstand scrutiny.<br /><br />Even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise – spurring plant growth worldwide – except during the strong 2015-16 El Niño, average global temperatures have remained steady for 18 years. Polar and Greenland ice caps, sea levels, hurricanes, floods and droughts refuse to behave in accord with climate chaos claims, computer model predictions, or EPA and Obama White House assertions.<br /><br />Meanwhile, as EPA moves to impose its “Clean Power Plan” and other draconian rules, developed and developing nations alike are building new coal-fired power plants every week, greatly expanding their oil and gas use, and reducing wind and solar subsidies. Even EPA analyses recognize that ending nearly all US fossil fuel use will prevent an undetectable global temperature rise of just 0.02 degrees by 2100.<br /><br />So EPA has tried to justify its job and economy-killing climate change and coal eradication rules by claiming they will bring huge “ancillary” health benefits. Those claims too are pure hogwash.<br /><br />US coal-fired power plants emit less than 0.5% of all the mercury that enters Earth’s atmosphere every year from Asian power plants, forest fires, volcanoes, subsea vents and geysers. EPA nonetheless claims its rules will magically bring benefits like an imperceptible 0.00209-point improvement in IQ scores!<br /><br />The agency also says banning coal-fired power plants will reduce “carcinogenic” and “lethal” levels of microscopic particulate matter (soot) in America’s air. But EPA has no medical evidence that what is still in our air poses actual problems. In fact, EPA-funded researchers illegally subjected human test subjects – including elderly, asthmatic, diabetic and cardiac patients – to 8, 30 or even 60 times more soot per volume (for up to two hours) than what EPA claims is dangerous or lethal. And yet, no one got sick.<br /><br />Obviously, EPA’s air quality standards and dire warnings about soot are totally out of whack with reality.<br /><br />The federal government next concocted what it calls the “social cost of carbon” framework. It assigns a price to using carbon-based fuels and emitting carbon dioxide, by blaming US fossil fuels and CO2 for every imaginable and imaginary “harm” to wildlife, climate and humans worldwide. It completely ignores the enormous and undeniable benefits of using those fuels, the equally important benefits of plant-fertilizing CO2, and horrendous damage that would result from eliminating 81% of America’s energy.<br /><br />Indeed, EPA and other regulators routinely ignore the impacts that their draconian regulations have on people’s jobs, living standards, health and welfare – including reduced or lost incomes, lower nutrition, welfare dependency, drug and alcohol abuse, and shorter life spans. They then present scientists, “health” and “environmental” organizations and advisory committees that approve and applaud the regulations anyway – often because the agencies pay them millions of dollars a year to do so.<br /><br />That’s how bureaucrats remain powerful, unaccountable and immune from being fired or having to compensate victims for their incompetent or even deliberate falsifications and actions. We end up being protected from exaggerated and fabricated risks, years or decades from now – by having jobs, companies, industries, families, communities, and our overall health and welfare hammered by over-regulation today.<br /><br />America’s voters rejected this agenda. Over 90% of the nation’s counties voted to Trump the bridge hand to tyranny. We do not want to roll back true environmental progress. But we do demand a return to sanity, science, and honest consideration of our overall health, welfare and “human environment” in approving regulations that govern our lives. Let’s insist that the new Congress and Administration do exactly that.<br /><br /><i>Via email</i><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-7354924744425213402016-12-07T01:26:00.001+13:002016-12-07T01:26:36.368+13:00<br /><br /><b>Dana Nuccitelli is up to his old tricks again</b><br /><br /><i>He tells a good story if you don't know the details he leaves out or distorts. At issue is the cause of the 2015/2016 global &nbsp;warming. &nbsp;But the graph below really tells it all. &nbsp;The warming was a typical El Nino peak, not the sustained rise we might have expected of anthropogenic global warming.<br /><br /><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Dm7665p.jpg" /><br /><br />And if the rise WERE caused by anthropogenic global warming, there would have to have been a rise in the CO2 content of the atmosphere during 2015 and 2016 to cause it. &nbsp;But there was not. &nbsp;<a href="http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/">The latest readings</a> are that CO2 levels plateaued in 2015 and 2016 &nbsp;-- something I have been pointing out for many months, just from a scan of the raw numbers as they came up at Mauna Loa and Cape Grim.<br /><br />People sometimes talk of delayed heating, of warming being "left over" from previous years -- but that is nonsense. &nbsp;Those little CO2 molecules are either up there bouncing heat or they are not. &nbsp;If I put a pot of water on the gas and a little later turn the gas off, the water immediately starts to cool. &nbsp;It does not keep on getting warmer for a while. There is no delayed heating.<br /><br />Nuccitelli doesn't have a leg to stand on. &nbsp;He is just a skilled liar. &nbsp;Warmists are great cherrypickers so it is amusing that Nuccitelli is one of those who have accused David Rose of cherrypicking. &nbsp; I did however put up yesterday a thorough &nbsp;demolition of that claim<br /></i><br /><br />Fake news tries to blame human-caused global warming on El Niño<br />Climate scientists and real science journalists pushed back, holding the post-truth crowd accountable<br /><br />Human carbon pollution is heating the Earth incredibly fast. On top of that long-term human-caused global warming trend, there are fluctuations caused by various natural factors. One of these is the El Niño/La Niña cycle. The combination of human-caused warming and a strong El Niño event are on the verge of causing an unprecedented three consecutive record-breaking hot years.<br /><br />Simply put, without global warming we would not be seeing record-breaking heat year after year. In fact, 2014 broke the temperature record without an El Niño assist, and then El Niño helped push 2015 over 2014, and 2016 over 2015.<br /><br />Sadly, we live in a post-truth world dominated by fake news in which people increasingly seek information that confirms their ideological beliefs, rather than information that’s factually accurate from reliable sources. Because people have become incredibly polarized on the subject of climate change, those with a conservative worldview who prefer maintaining the status quo to the steps we need to take to prevent a climate catastrophe often seek out climate science-denying stories.<br /><br />Into that environment step conservative columnists David Rose at the Mail on Sunday, parroted by Ross Clark in The Spectator and James Delingpole for Breitbart, all trying to blame the current record-shattering hot global temperatures entirely on El Niño. Perhaps saddest of all, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee tweeted the Breitbart piece, to which Senator Bernie Sanders appropriately responded:<br /><br />Where'd you get your PhD? Trump University?<br /><br />The conservative columnists made their case by claiming that, with the recent strong El Niño event ending, temperatures are “plummeting,” thus blaming the record heat on El Niño. There are several fatal flaws in their case.<br /><br />First, the “plummet” they cite is not in global temperatures on the surface where we live, and where temperatures are easiest to measure accurately, but rather in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower atmosphere above the portions of Earth’s surface covered by land masses. Second, although the satellite data extend as far back as 1979, and the global surface temperature data to 1880, they cherry pick the data by only showing the portion since 1997. Third, the argument is based entirely upon one relatively cool month (October 2016) that was only cool in that particularly cherry-picked data set.<br /><br />The argument is easily debunked. While there was a strong El Niño event in 2015–2016, there was an equally strong event in 1997–1998. The two events had very similar short-term warming influences on global surface temperatures, but according to Nasa, 2016 will be about 0.35°C hotter than 1998. That difference is due to the long-term, human-caused global warming trend. In fact, according to Nasa, even October 2016 was hotter than every month on record prior to 1998. These “plummeting” post-El Niño temperatures are still as hot as the hottest month at the peak of the 1998 El Niño.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/dec/05/fake-news-tries-to-blame-human-caused-global-warming-on-el-nino">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Obama Administration Sides With Protesters, Halting Construction of Dakota Access Pipeline</b><br /><br />The Department of the Army handed protesters of the Dakota Access pipeline a victory Sunday when it announced the project would be re-routed. The decision came on the eve of the government’s Monday deadline for protesters to evacuate their encampment.<br /><br />For the past several months, members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have waged a campaign against the pipeline, drawing the support of environmentalists and liberal entertainers. They were upset that the pipeline would cross under Lake Oahe in North Dakota. Now, the company installing the 1,172-mile pipeline will have to find another route or appeal to the incoming Trump administration in 2017.<br /><br />“Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it’s clear that there’s more work to do,” Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Army’s assistant secretary for civil works, said in the statement Sunday. “The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing.”<br /><br />It’s unclear what protesters will do Monday, when they face the deadline to leave. Even before Sunday’s decision, North Dakota’s congressman warned that the fight over the pipeline would likely continue.<br /><br />“The idea that [the pipeline protest] is about the environment is bogus,” Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said last week in an interview with Daily Signal editor in chief Rob Bluey.<br /><br />The pipeline is designed to transport oil from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to southern Illinois.<br /><br />Prior to Sunday’s announcement, Energy Transfer Partners, the company in charge of the project, had estimated it would be fully operational by the end of this year. It is already over 90 percent complete, but environmentalists and citizens of the nearby Standing Rock Sioux Reservation successful halted its construction.<br /><br />On April 1, tribal citizens founded the “Sacred Stone Camp” near the construction site to protest the pipeline. The group is concerned that it will be constructed close enough to the tribe’s water source, the Missouri River, to cause spillage.<br /><br />However, according to Time magazine, the pipeline does not pass through tribal land. Since Sacred Stone’s founding, the site has been subject to ongoing protests to halt the pipeline’s construction.<br /><br />State officials and the Army Corps of Engineers have issued an evacuation notice to protesters, but Cramer said it is unlikely they will comply.<br /><br />“They have … issued an evacuation notice for the land that the camp is on, the illegal camp, and so as of next Monday [Dec. 5], anyone staying there will be trespassing,” Cramer said.<br /><br />When asked if he was confident that the protesters would leave by the deadline, the congressman said:<br /><br />I’m not, because the tribe and others have committed to staying there. I will tell you that the 2 feet of snow or so that they’ve got in the last couple of days probably is a greater distraction than an evacuation notice from the [U.S. Army] Corps of Engineers, but winter can be a very sobering time in North Dakota on the prairie.<br /><br />“What started out as a prayerful, peaceful protest of course has turned into a very violent and aggressive riot in many cases,” the congressman said in his interview with The Daily Signal. “The blending of agitators and out-of-state people with a different agenda than just protection of water for the tribe has created a lot of chaos,” he said.<br /><br />In the interview, Cramer also rejected the idea that protesters were seeking to defend the environment against the pipeline’s construction.<br /><br />“This oil is being produced today. It’s being moved now. It’s just not being moved by this efficient, safe means of transportation,” Cramer said. “So the idea that some of this is about the environment is bogus. This oil is going to be produced. So I just think that many of the arguments against it are ironic at best and hypocritical most likely.”<br /><br />When asked about how he believed the management of federal lands would change under the incoming Trump administration, Cramer expressed optimism that President-elect Donald Trump would handle things differently.<br /><br />“We own … over $50 trillion … worth of oil and gas. [Trump is] a businessman; he knows what $50 trillion could do for our country,” Cramer said, adding:<br /><br />Mr. Trump is also an environmentalist. The idea of just exploiting federal lands is something he doesn’t take lightly either, but he’s also smart enough to know that modern technology and appropriate safeguards can be put in place to do it in a safe and reasonable manner while at the same time exploiting it for the benefit of our economy and job creation and, certainly, national security.<br /><br /><a href="http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/02/why-the-dakota-pipeline-protesters-wont-evacuate-by-deadline/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>New EPA rules push regulatory costs past $1 trillion, $3,080 per person</b><br /><br />The new implementation of EPA rules on heavy trucks has boosted the 10-year regulatory burden on America past $1 trillion, 75 percent of which have been imposed by the Obama administration.<br /><br />That amounts to a one-time charge of $3,080 per person, or an annual cost of $540, according to a new analysis from American Action Forum.<br /><br />"In other words, each year every person, regardless of age, in the nation is responsible for paying roughly $540 in regulatory costs. These burdens might take the form of higher prices, fewer jobs, or reduced wages," said AAF's Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the watchdog group.<br /><br />The staggering amount is likely to surge even higher as President Obama scrambles to lock in several environmental regulations before leaving office. He has already broken records for new regulations and added red tape this year and still has 50 days in office.<br /><br />Incoming President-elect Trump has promised to kill two current regulations for every new one he adds.<br /><br />The new high in regulatory costs, said Batkins, came after new fuel standards for trucks were implemented.<br /><br />His study goes back to 2005, when George W. Bush was president, and said that Obama is responsible for about three-quarters of the added regulatory costs.<br /><br />"The Obama Administration surpassed 500 major regulations last summer, imposing $625 billion in cumulative costs. Earlier this year, regulators published the administration's 600th major rule, increasing burdens to $743 billion.<br /><br />Now, thanks to data from the last term of the Bush Administration and another billion-dollar rule from EPA, the regulatory tally has surpassed $1 trillion. These figures are direct estimates from federal regulators, but it will take more than an effort from these regulators to amend hundreds of major regulations. Congress, the next president, and even the courts must participate in the next generation of regulatory modernization," he reported.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-epa-rules-push-regulatory-costs-past-1-trillion-3080-per-person/article/2608593">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Reality Check: Despite Climate Change Vow, China Pushes to Dig More Coal</b><br /><br />America’s uncertain stance toward global warming under the coming administration of Donald J. Trump has given China a leading role (sic!) in the fight against climate change. It has called on the United States to recognize established science and to work with other countries to reduce dependence on dirty fuels like coal and oil. But there is a problem: Even as it does so, China is scrambling to mine and burn more coal.<br /><br />A lack of stockpiles and worries about electricity blackouts are spurring Chinese officials to reverse curbs that once helped reduce coal production. Mines are reopening. Miners are being lured back with fatter paychecks.<br /><br />China’s response to coal scarcity shows how hard it will be to wean the country off coal. That makes it harder for China and the world to meet emissions targets, as Chinese coal is the world’s largest single source of carbon emissions from human activities.<br /><br />Among China watchers, the turnabout also has contributed to questions about the fate of China’s current crop of economic planners. [...]<br /><br />Coal still produces almost three-quarters of China’s electricity, despite ambitious hydroelectric dam projects and the world’s largest program to install solar panels and build wind turbines. Coal use in China also produces more emissions than all the oil, coal and gas consumed in the United States.<br /><br />“I get a kick out of people in the West who think China is decarbonizing, because I see no sign of it whatsoever,” said Brock Silvers, a Shanghai banker who has previously served on the boards of two Chinese coal companies.<br /><br />Troubled by pollution and worries about rising sea levels, China moved in recent months to rein in coal. Coal production dropped 3 percent last year — a result of that effort, but also a sign of slowing economic growth as well as a gradual shift in the Chinese economy toward American-style consumer spending and away from exports and heavy manufacturing.<br /><br />That prompted the International Energy Agency to offer an optimistic reassessment this autumn: Chinese coal use peaked in 2013 and would now decline.<br /><br />China’s reversal now is prompting skepticism. “There is still a peak coming,” said Xizhou Zhou, the head of Asia and Pacific gas and power analysis at IHS Energy, a global consulting group. “It’s still going to increase.”<br /><br />IHS Energy forecasts that Chinese coal demand will not peak until 2026.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-despite-climate-change-vow-china-pushes-to-dig-more-coal/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Australia: Greenie panic about Great Barrier Reef could harm tourism and agriculture</b><br /><br />The Queensland and Federal Governments' reef 2050 progress report to UNESCO says land clearing is a significant challenge to future sustainability.<br /><br />Scientists link land clearing to sediment runoff and poor water quality, and the report says it could put the reef on UNESCO's 'in danger' list.<br /><br />Cynthia Sabag, who runs a tropical fruit farm halfway between Townsville and Cairns, said she is concerned about the health of the Great Barrier Reef, but does not think farming is to blame for its deterioration.<br /><br />"It seems that agriculture has often been made the scapegoat in this debate," she said. "There was no evidence on our land that any of our farming was causing runoff, which would affect the Great Barrier Reef."<br /><br />The State Government recently failed to pass laws to stop clearing, and now the Federal Government says it might intervene.<br /><br />That would be a win for conservationists, but for Ms Sabag a return to more precarious times when she was not allowed to clear land for farming. "The way it was prior to the legislation, we had no hope whatsoever of ever selling our property and no hope of retiring, which is pretty demoralising," she said.<br /><br />"This sort of has given us some hope, but we've lost 10 years of our life and 10 years of developing a property."<br /><br />Agricultural industry body AgForce echoes Ms Sabag's concerns.<br /><br />President Grant Maudsley said some politicians do not understand the challenges of managing rural properties. &nbsp;"It's easy on the left side of politics ... to point at the bush and say the bush is doing the wrong things," he said. "It's simply not the case."<br /><br />"We would prefer to go down a policy outcome ... and have a little talk about things, but to keep pointing the finger consistently time and time again at one issue as being the problem is rubbish."<br /><br />Mr Maudsley hopes the reef will not make UNESCO's 'in danger' list and disputes evidence that land clearing is the problem.<br /><br />"What we're all looking for is reducing runoff, but you don't do that by having all trees and all grass, you have a combination of both," he said. "If you have a complete tree landscape, you actually end up with a really high density of trees, which actually reduces the cover on the ground and water actually runs off."<br /><br />Mr Maudsley also points out other sectors, including mining, have a role to play in restoring health to the reef.<br /><br />Conservationists agree and criticise the report's failure to make any substantial policy commitments to dealing with climate change.<br /><br />Imogen Zethoven from the Australian Marine Conservation Society said reducing fossil fuels is a key part of that. "We really have to start taking some tough decisions, and one of them is that we really should not be opening up any new coal mines," Ms Zethoven said.<br /><br />She is concerned about the proposed controversial Adani coal mine in the Galilee Basin, which has just secured a rail line, a temporary construction camp and is now seeking federal government funding. "[It's a] devastating mine that will really spell disaster for the reef," she said.<br /><br />"We are also extremely concerned that the Federal Government appears to be using taxpayer money to fund this reef-destroying project."<br /><br />"We know that there is a serious issue with jobs in north Queensland, but it's not about any old job, it's the right job.<br /><br />"It's about jobs that are in industries that are the future, like renewable energy, jobs that are in the tourism sector, which is growing, that will be terribly hurt if this massive Adani coal mine goes ahead."<br /><br />If the reef is placed on the 'in danger' list it could potentially lose its world heritage status and that could have devastating impacts on the tourism sector.<br /><br />Daniel Gschwind from Queensland's Tourism Industry Council said it could deter visitors and undermine Australia's reputation as a tourist destination.<br /><br />"The money they spend on the visits to the reef, to Queensland, to north Queensland amounts to between $5-6 billion every year," Mr Gschwind said.<br /><br />"That money circulates through local communities, regional communities, on and on, and it employs and generates employment for about 50,000 Queenslanders."<br /><br />He said UNESCO's assessment is putting the international spotlight on Australia, and the next few years could see it emerge as either the hero or the villain of environmental management.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-05/great-barrier-reef-in-danger-listing/8093548">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-20765245320723878072016-12-06T01:36:00.000+13:002016-12-06T01:36:48.346+13:00<br /><br /><b>New Antarctic panic is just the usual dishonest rubbish</b><br /><br /><i>At the risk of extreme tautology, the Larsen C Ice Shelf is a SHELF -- a long, narrow, frosty rim floating on the water alongside the coast of Antarctica. &nbsp;And as Archimedes discovered over 2,000 years ago, the melting of floating ice does NOT raise the water level. &nbsp;So the "rising sea level" threat can be put to bed conclusively.<br /><br />But what about global warming? &nbsp;It does get one brief mention below. &nbsp;Since the Antarctic ice as a whole is growing, that is an impossible explanation. <br /><br />The cause of the melting will undoubtedly be subsurface vulcanism. &nbsp;The Larsen C Ice Shelf is on the Antarctic peninsula and the Western Antarctic as a whole is known for subsurface vulcanism. <br /><br />And the Larsen C Ice Shelf in particular is in fact known to have cold seeps underneath it, which are a sort of cool volcano. &nbsp;Whether they are warm enough to explain the recent melting is not clear but in the circumstances there is a good chance that there are hotter areas nearby<br /></i><br /><br />An enormous rift has opened up in a section of the Antarctic ice shelf spanning 300 feet. The Larsen C Ice Shelf is gradually breaking up and will eventually produce an iceberg the size of Delaware before it disintegrates entirely.<br /><br />A team of researchers flew over the gigantic crack in the ice and calculated it to be about 70 miles long, more than 300 feet wide and about a third of a mile deep.<br /><br />'The crack completely cuts through the Ice Shelf but it does not go all the way across it – once it does, it will produce an iceberg roughly the size of the state of Delaware,' NASA said in a press release.<br /><br />The collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf on the east side of the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002 saw a 1,235 square miles (3,200 square km) section of ice break apart into thousands of icebergs in just 35 days.<br /><br />Larsen B was thought to have been stable for up to 12,000 years, according to studies on the collapse, but had become a hotspot of global warming.<br /><br />Previous studies had suggested that the ice shelf began melting only a few years before it disintegrated in 2002.<br /><br />Rising summertime temperatures are thought to have increased the water flow into cracks which then acted like wedges to lever the ice shelf apart.<br /><br />It sparked widespread concern about the impact that climate change is having on the ice sheet balance in Antarctica, although a recent study showed ice mass on the continent has actually increased.<br /><br />Antarctica is gaining more ice than it loses, research by Nasa last year found. It said Antarctica's ice sheet is thickening enough to outweigh increased losses caused by melting glaciers.<br /><br />The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report which says that Antarctica is losing land ice overall. But it also warns that losses could offset the gains in years to come.<br /><br />The increase in Antarctic snow began 10,000 years ago and continues in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7cm) per year, according to the space agency.<br /><br />Researchers analysed satellite data to demonstrate the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001.<br /><br />That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.<br /><br />The collapse of the Larsen Ice shelf in 2002, which is one of the biggest on record, is thought to have triggered further acceleration and thinning of the glaciers behind it.<br /><br />There are now growing fears over the remaining section of the Larsen B ice shelf - which is around 625 square miles, and the large Larsen C ice shelf further to the south.<br /><br />A recent study revealed that on the opposite side of the Antarctic Peninsula, more than 386 square miles of ice – an area the size of Berlin – has been lost in the past 40 years.<br /><br />But elsewhere in the Antarctic, the ice sheet has been growing. Satellite data showed that the continent's vast ice sheet has showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice each year between 1992 and 2001.<br /><br />However, between 2003 and 2008, that has slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3998856/NASA-photo-reveals-startling-300-foot-wide-rift-Antarctic-ice-shelf-eventually-produce-iceberg-size-Delaware.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>One subsidy breeds another</b><br /><br /><i>Having distorted the market by big subsidies for "renewables", generating power from gas is no longer economic in Britain. &nbsp;But Britain needs gas for baseload power. &nbsp;So now they have to subsidize gas too -- or risk blackouts in the near future. &nbsp;So huge amounts of money are being wasted for no advantage</i><br /><br /><br />As a result of Britain’s energy policies, building new gas-fired power plants is no longer economic. Now, the Government has to subsidise gas investors to keep the lights on.<br /><br />Four years ago this week, the Government unveiled plans for a bold new dash for gas. New gas-fired power stations, then-energy secretary Ed Davey said, would be required to “provide crucial capacity to keep the lights on”.<br /><br />A new Gas Generation Strategy backed “significant investment” in up to 26 gigawatts (GW) of new plants by 2030. Since then, energy ministers have come and gone, support for solar and onshore wind has been scrapped and the drive for new nuclear has faced security and cost worries.<br /><br />But support for gas had been unwavering. Relatively cheap and quick to build, much cleaner than coal, and able to generate even when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine, gas plants tick all the Government’s boxes. “In the next 10 years, it’s imperative that we get new gas-fired power stations built,” Amber Rudd, Davey’s successor, declared last year.<br /><br />There’s just one problem: pretty much no one’s building them. Only one new station, at Carrington in Manchester, has been completed since 2013 as investment has dried up. This week, though, that could be about to change. A subsidy scheme designed to keep the lights on could, analysts believe, secure construction of several big new gas plants.<br /><br />Few could dispute that the UK needs new power plants. “An awful lot of capacity has either closed or is closing,” explains Richard Howard, of Policy Exchange. The think-tank calculates that some 23GW of conventional thermal power plant capacity has been closed or mothballed since 2010. “That’s more than a third of peak demand,” says Howard. “And a further 24GW of coal and nuclear is expected to close between now and 2025. We need to build some new capacity – otherwise the lights will go out.”<br /><br />The problem is, the UK electricity market has changed so much – due in large part to the growth of subsidised renewables – investors say they can no longer justify building new plants based solely on their likely returns from selling power in the market. “Essentially no new capacity is being built without some form of government-backed contract,” Howard says.<br /><br /><a href="https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/12/04/britain-forced-to-subsidise-gas-power-plants-to-keep-lights-on/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Mass: West Roxbury pipeline to open, despite protests</b><br /><br />A Houston energy company plans to start transmitting gas through a pipeline in densely populated West Roxbury on Thursday, despite two years of protests by neighbors and the continued objections of city officials concerned about public safety.<br /><br />The news outraged neighbors who fear the pipeline could explode because it travels near an open quarry where dynamite is regularly detonated.<br /><br />“If that thing is going to blow – and we believe it will blow at a certain point — we’re done,” said Nancy Wilson, who lives about three blocks from the pipeline and has been arrested twice while protesting its construction. “We just assume we will be incinerated because of this.”<br /><br />Mayor Martin J. Walsh and other city officials sent letters Monday to federal energy regulators and to the Houston company that owns the pipeline accusing the firm of breaking its promise to share critical safety plans with the Boston police and fire departments.<br /><br />The commissioners of those departments say that Houston-based Spectra Energy Corp. told them they could see the security plan for a crucial gas transfer station outside the quarry’s entrance on Grove Street as well as a “heat map” that indicates which neighbors would need to be evacuated in the event of a leak. But Spectra representatives have not shared that information with the city, the commissioners contend.<br /><br />“Without this vital information, Boston police and fire will be unable to assess additional security that may be needed and unable to effectively respond in the case of an emergency,” Police Commissioner William B. Evans and Fire Commissioner Joseph E. Finn wrote to Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC, a Spectra subsidiary.<br /><br />Spectra released a statement on Wednesday that noted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last week approved the start of gas service in the pipeline and said that transmission is “ready to begin” on Thursday. The five-mile pipeline is part of a larger, $1 billion-project designed to increase the supply of natural gas to New England.<br /><br />“The West Roxbury Lateral will provide National Grid with additional supplies of clean burning, affordable natural gas for homes, hospitals, businesses, and schools in the city of Boston,” the statement said. “The Algonquin system has operated safely in the region for more than 60 years. The . . . project facilities are designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or exceed federal safety standards and regulations.”<br /><br />The company said it was reviewing Monday’s letter from Evans and Finn and would respond. Evans said earlier this week during an interview on WGBH radio that city lawyers are considering what other steps they might be able to take to stop the opening of the pipeline.<br /><br />Walsh already filed a federal lawsuit earlier this year challenging the federal commission’s approval of the project. Oral arguments have not been scheduled in the case.<br /><br />Walsh said in an interview Wednesday that, unless the court intervenes, there is “virtually zero ability by the city or the state to be able to halt this type of pipeline after it gets approved by the federal government.”<br /><br />He said, however, he is still hopeful that the pipeline can be relocated.<br /><br />“If you’re looking for a place in any part of the city of Boston to locate this, the last place I would probably put this is next to a quarry,” Walsh said.<br /><br />US Representative Stephen F. Lynch, another pipeline opponent, wrote to the commission twice this month, saying that it was reckless for the agency to allow the project to proceed and that it puts countless lives at risk.<br /><br />He pointed to several recent pipeline disasters, including a Nov. 16 explosion in Canton, Ill., that killed one person and injured 12.<br /><br />In addition to raising safety concerns, many neighbors also argue the project will delay the region’s long-overdue transition to renewable energy sources.<br /><br />Neighbors have held frequent demonstrations at the site and tried to block construction of the project over the summer. Twenty-three people, including Al Gore’s daughter, Karenna, were arrested during one demonstration in June.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/30/pipeline/DrigQDZylMPdMkDkkT58cN/story.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Vilifying David Rose: Attacking The Messenger Over Sharp Drop In Land Temps</b><br /><br />In the Mail on Sunday last week, David Rose penned an article pointing out the very sharp decline in RSS land only data to October 2016, indicating that ocean surface temperatures might also cool significantly soon and that perhaps scientists and the media over-played the role of man-made global warming in the spike in global temperatures in early 2016 which were precipitated by the natural warming event of El Nino 2015/16. Predictably, he has been vilified for doing so, called a denier, accused of cherry-picking the data to suit his ‘denialist’ agenda etc. etc.<br /><br />All pretty familiar stuff now to those used to observing the spectacle which is warmist kick-back against any who dare to question any aspect of ‘The Science’.<br /><br />James Delingpole then joined the fray and published at Breitbart, referencing Rose’s article, pointing out the “icy silence” from climate alarmists following the large drop in land temperatures (as measured by RSS satellite but also, as it happens, by GISS and UAH). Warmist fury peaked El Nino-like when the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space &amp; Technology had the audacity to tweet a link to Delingpole the Denier’s Breitbart article. Cue rants from the Keepers of the True Science of Climate Change and numerous other lesser warmist offendotron minions.<br /><br />The main objection to Rose’s article is that he ‘cherry-picked’ land only data from the RSS lower troposphere dataset and ignored the oceans (he did not) and that (bizarrely) he cherry-picked two data points and ignored the longer record. The whole point of Rose’s article is that this is exactly what the media and scientactivists were doing when they hyped the El Nino to promote the anthropogenic global warming message! And they did. There is no doubt about that (as we shall see).<br /><br />Firstly, let’s examine whether Rose’s ‘cherrypick’ of the RSS land only data was indeed a cherrypick. As you can see, UAH shows a very similar drop:<br /><br /><img height="400" src="https://cliscep.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/to-2016-83.png" width="600" /><br /><br />The GISS land only dataset shows a similar large decline:<br /><br /><img height="400" src="https://cliscep.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/screenshot-twitter-com-2016-12-03-16-21-03.png" width="600" /><br /><br />So obviously, it was not simply Rose cherry-picking the data because the evidence is there : over land, temperatures dropped precipitously from Feb to Oct 2016. As Rose points out, the ocean data has been slower to respond, but it’s reasonable to speculate that, in 2017, the oceans might continue to cool (as they are now, and especially if a strong La Nina kicks in), whereupon the Pause in global warming might re-establish itself in which case the El Nino of 2015/16 will come to be seen as a short term weather event only, contrary to the hype we saw from scientists and the media at its peak. Of course, there is the possibility global temperatures might remain at a new higher level in which case we can say that El Nino has contributed to the long term global warming trend (as in 1998). The fact remains, however, most of the short term increase in temperature that we saw over 2014/15/16 can be attributed to the building super El Nino, not GHG global warming. This was not what scientists and the media were saying when El Nino peaked:<br /><br />Adam Scaife (Met Office): "The vast majority of the warming is global warming, but the icing on the cake is the big El Niño event” ... We think El Niño made only a small contribution (a few hundredths of a degree) to the record global temperatures in 2015.... The forecast for next year is about 0.8C above the 1961-1990 baseline. About 0.2 of that is likely to come from El Niño, hence the 25%"<br /><br />Peter Stott (Met Office): "El Nino will have contributed a “small amount on top” to the global warming of 2015/16.<br /><br />When the peak did happen, Gavin was like, ‘Wow’ and this was ‘special’:<br /><br />The Guardian, supported by comments from a number of scientists, concluded that the global warming occurring at the time was “shocking” and that it constituted a “climate emergency”.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thegwpf.com/vilifying-david-rose-for-reporting-decline-in-global-land-temps/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Drain the Swamp: Sunset the Renewable Fuel Standard</b><br /><br />Just before the Thanksgiving weekend I spoke to a trade association about the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS)—why the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) wants to abolish it, and how reform-minded groups might constructively engage the incoming Trump administration given the President-elect’s well-known support for the RFS. Below is an edited version of my remarks.<br /><br />The Competitive Enterprise Institute, as our name suggests, believes that refereed competition—competition under rules of fair play—advances the public interest. Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek called competition a “discovery procedure.” Competition reveals “which goods are scarce,” “how scarce or valuable they are,” and even “which things are goods.” When government grants special privileges to some industries or firms at the expense of others, consumers pay more for inferior products and services, policymakers become captive to special interests, and the favored industry becomes dependent on corporate welfare. Not good! <br /><br />CEI therefore opposes any government policy that aims to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. So naturally, we oppose the RFS and advocate its repeal.<br /><br />Competition<br /><br />How does the RFS limit competition? At a House Energy &amp; Commerce Committee hearing in June, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois asked Janet McCabe, the Environmental Protection Agency official who administers the RFS, why EPA proposed 2 billion gallons as the biodiesel target for 2017 when the biodiesel industry says it can produce much more.<br /><br />McCabe explained (hearing transcript, p. 71) that biodiesel is one of several fuels that qualify as an “advanced biofuel” in the RFS program. So a question EPA wrestles with is “how much of that advanced category should biodiesel basically get a guarantee on?” She continued: “. . . we believe that it is important to have competition and choice and opportunity for a variety of fuels to compete.” She noted the target is not a cap on how much biodiesel producers can offer for sale. Rather, it is a cap on how much refiners are obligated to buy and blend. Capping that obligation, she said, “leaves room” for other fuels to compete.<br /><br />Think about what her explanation implies. If the quota for biodiesel leaves less room for other fuels to compete within the advanced biofuel category, then the RFS as a whole leaves less room for choice and competition in the total motor fuel market. Every gallon of renewable fuel which the RFS guarantees for sale restricts overall market competition and choice by the same amount.<br /><br />Consider the statutory goal of the RFS—squeeze 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel into the marketplace by 2022, with up to 35 billion gallons blended with gasoline for passenger vehicles. That target won’t be met and becomes increasingly unrealistic each year. But imagine it could and will be done. Thirty-five billion gallons is more than one-quarter of the projected size of the total gasoline market in 2022 (see Figure 1 of this testimony). The ultimate aim of the RFS is to deny fossil fuels the opportunity to compete for one out every four gallons of motor fuel households buy.<br /><br />Ask yourself: Would your company thrive or even survive if Congress required you to cede one quarter of the market to your competitors? What would you think of a World Series in which one team automatically wins one of the first four games? Or a Super Bowl in which only one team is allowed to go on offense in the first quarter?<br /><br />This year, EPA proposes to lower the statutory RFS goals in light of the blend wall, a set of market constraints that effectively limits the quantity of ethanol sold to less than 10 percent of the gasoline market. EPA does want to force the market beyond the blend wall, but not as much as the corn ethanol lobby demands. A group of senators led by Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) claim the EPA may not consider the blend wall when determining refiners’ annual requirements, known as Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs). Specifically, they contend that “lack of distribution infrastructure was explicitly rejected by Congress as a reason to grant a waiver [from statutory goals] in 2005.”<br /><br />The Senators don’t provide a source for their statutory interpretation. Yet even if correct, their claim is irrelevant. The blend wall had no bearing on the RFS as created in 2005. The original RFS annual blending targets maxed out at 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. That is only about half the quantity of ethanol U.S. markets can absorb as E10—gasoline blended with 10 percent ethanol. Under the 2005 RFS, there was simply no prospect of biofuel production running up against the E10 blend wall.<br /><br />Biofuel lobbyists often claim refiners have “obligations” to finance the blender pumps and storage tanks that supposedly would enable them to meet the RFS program’s statutory targets. But where in either the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which the created the RFS, or the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which expanded the program, is such an obligation discussed or mentioned?<br /><br />Biofuel interests have never cited any such provision because it does not exist. Apparently, they want us to believe that if Congress willed the end, it must have willed the means. But sausage-making—writing and passing laws—is not an exercise in abstract logic. Laws embody tradeoffs and compromises and rarely give the affected interests everything they want. Congress considered several bills with provisions requiring refiners to install E85 infrastructure at their affiliated stations. None of those provisions actually made it into the law.<br /><br />The proximate cause of the blend wall is the incompatibility of high ethanol blends with most retail fuel infrastructure and vehicles on the road. The vast majority of service stations are small businesses with thin profit margins. Installing an E15 or E85 dispenser with a dedicated storage tank can cost up to $200,000. Although EPA approved the use of E15 for 2001 and newer models, most owners’ manuals and warranties for vehicles manufactured before 2015 caution against using E15. Biofuel lobbyists yack a lot about those barriers and demand refiners “invest” in biofuel infrastructure to overcome them. However, they ignore the root cause of the blend wall: crummy fuel economy.<br /><br />Although ethanol is cheaper by the gallon than gasoline, it has one third less energy. At today’s relative prices, the typical motorist, depending on the size of the vehicle, would have to spend $50-$300 more each year to fill up with E85 instead of regulatory gasoline. In recent years the annual price penalty has been as big as $1,450. If high-ethanol blends actually saved consumers money, they would demand it, and the ethanol industry itself would invest in the blender pumps and storage tanks required to serve that market. Why don’t they?<br /><br />RFS defenders claim it’s because Big Oil uses its “market power” to prevent retail outlets from offering high-ethanol blends. Rubbish. More than 95 percent of gas stations are independent businesses, and more than 50 percent are unbranded single station operators. A franchise agreement may require the service station to offer premium, regular, and mid-grade gasoline, so if the station has only three pumps, none will be available to provide E15 or E85. But that is not an abuse of market power. It simply means that infrastructure is not free.<br /><br />Think about it this way. When you take the kids to McDonald’s, you expect the local franchise to carry all the standard items on the McDonald’s menu. That’s the same kind of reliable, predictable service oil companies require their franchisees to offer customers. With this critical difference. McDonald’s does not allow franchisees to sell Burger King Whoppers even if they do so at their own expense. In contrast, branded service stations are free to offer products in addition to the standard fare if they want to and can raise the requisite capital. So far, however, the biofuel lobby has shown little interest in putting its own skin in the game.<br /><br />How come? Maybe because they know that if ethanol were really the great bargain they claim it is, we would not need a law to make us buy it.<br /><br />Legal Plunder<br /><br />I jokingly call the RFS a Soviet-style production quota system. Jokingly, because Lenin and Stalin had the intellectual modesty to establish only five-year plans whereas the RFS, as expanded by Congress in 2007, is a 15-year plan. It sets annual biofuel targets for 2008 through 2022.<br /><br />Like other central planning schemes, the RFS is fraught with unintended consequences. It incentivizes land conversions eradicating millions of acres of wildlife habitat. Compared to the gasoline it replaces, the RFS increases certain types of air and water pollution, raises food prices, and may actually increase net greenhouse gas emissions.<br /><br />But even if the RFS worked exactly as advertised, Congress should still repeal it. The RFS literally compels one set of companies to purchase, process, and create a market for other companies’ products. It makes one business the involuntary servant of another. That is not the American way.<br /><br />To see the anomaly, imagine the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose Congress proposed to enact WVOs (wheat volume obligations) requiring corn farmers to buy and sell annually increasing quantities of wheat. Or IVOs (input volume obligations) requiring corn farmers to purchase annually increasing quantities of specific seeds, fertilizers, and farm machinery—those deemed “sustainable” by the EPA. The howls from RFS supporters would be loud and furious. And justifiably so.<br /><br />The implication is obvious. The RFS is a system of special privilege. It conflicts with the basic constitutional principle of equality under law.<br /><br />Prospects for Reform<br /><br />In the Texas GOP primary debate, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) opined that Congress doesn’t have to repeal the RFS because “it is phasing out” and by 2022 “it will go away.” Unfortunately, that’s not the case.<br /><br />Although the statutory targets don’t increase after 2022, the RFS does not expire. Rather, Section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) of the Clean Air Act directs EPA, in coordination with the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, to establish RVOs for the motor fuel industry in “other calendar years”—in principle, until the end of time. The provision also limits EPA’s authority to reduce post-2022 RVOs for biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, and biomass-based diesel.<br /><br />Terminating the RFS after 2022 will require congressional action and executive leadership.<br /><br />Our various groups must keep making our separate yet complementary cases for repealing the RFS so there’s a fighting chance the program will sunset after 2022.<br /><br />How should we engage the Trump administration on RFS reform? In 2007, Congress and President Bush touted the RFS as a policy to mitigate climate change, enhance U.S. energy security, and strengthen rural economies. I suspect only one of those three rationales resonates strongly with the President elect.<br /><br />Trump doesn’t seem to worry much about climate change. Besides, many environmentalists now attack corn ethanol as more carbon-intensive than gasoline.<br /><br />Trump cares about energy security but also likely understands that fracking, not the RFS, has made America great again as an energy producer.<br /><br />So what Trump probably likes most about the RFS is the jobs and wealth it creates in rural America. We need to familiarize him with other side of the story—the costs and risks the RFS imposes on the livestock farmers and chain restaurants.<br /><br />In general, we should connect the RFS to core Trump campaign themes. Explain why the RFS is a posterchild for bipartisan collusion to “rig” the marketplace on behalf of special interests. “Draining the swamp” includes abolishing the RFS.<br /><br />Trump wants to downsize or even dismantle the EPA. Well, if the new administration and Congress don’t amend the Clean Air Act, EPA’s power to meddle in motor fuel markets and dispense corporate welfare will increase after 2022. RFS reform is critical to shrinking the EPA.<br /><br /><a href="https://cei.org/blog/drain-swamp-sunset-renewable-fuel-standard">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-66561943082308452172016-12-05T01:34:00.001+13:002016-12-05T01:37:18.373+13:00<br /><br /><b>It's not the oceans wot did it</b><br /><br /><i>Warmists claim that just before the turn of the present century, the oceans for some unknown reason started gobbling up all the extra warmth (theoretically) generated by rising levels of CO2. &nbsp;And there is some slight evidence of increased heat in the oceans. &nbsp;The latest paleoclimate proxy study (below) is therefore interesting. &nbsp;It found two things:<br /><br />1). &nbsp;Ocean temperature changes over the last 200 years were "below the detection limit". In other words there has been NO ocean warming at all in our times.<br /><br />2). Further back in the last 10,000 years there WERE times of rapid and substantial changes in ocean temperature. &nbsp;In other words, long before that wicked industrialization that Warmists hate, NATURAL changes in ocean temperatures did occur.<br /><br />So we have got a doubly whammy: &nbsp;There has been NO recent change in ocean temperature but even if there were, it could be all natural, and, as such, no proof of anything.</i><br /><br />Rapid variations in deep ocean temperature detected in the Holocene<br /><br />Samantha C. Bova et al.<br /><br />Abstract<br /><br />The observational record of deep-ocean variability is short, which makes it difficult to attribute the recent rise in deep ocean temperatures to anthropogenic forcing. Here, we test a new proxy – the oxygen isotopic signature of individual benthic foraminifera – to detect rapid (i.e. monthly to decadal) variations in deep ocean temperature and salinity in the sedimentary record. We apply this technique at 1000 m water depth in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific during seven 200-year Holocene intervals. Variability in foraminifer δ18O over the past 200 years is below the detection limit, but δ18O signatures from two mid-Holocene intervals indicate temperature swings &gt;2 °C within 200 years. More vigorous transport between the surface and deep ocean or stronger eddy variability than that observed in the historical record are potential explanations. Distinguishing externally forced climate trends in deep ocean properties from unforced variability should be possible with systematic analysis of suitable deep sea cores.<br /><br /><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071450/abstract">doi: 10.1002/2016GL071450</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Reality finally hits an old attention-whore</b><br /><br /><a href="https://www.masterresource.org/hansen-james/hansen-moderates-alarm/">Robert Bradley</a> has up a series of quotations from Jim Hansen showing how his many prophecies over the years have always been couched in the most urgent language and also showing that they have always been wrong.<br /><br />Which is amusing enough. &nbsp;Even more amusing, however is his latest utterance, which is a large backdown. &nbsp;His words this month include: "“The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts.”.<br /><br />After many failed prophecies, the urgency has gone.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Germany tells World Bank to quit funding fossil fuels</b><br /><br /><i>Why is Germany building all those brown coal power stations then? &nbsp;Is German coal more ethical than third world coal?</i><br /><br />German development minister says World Bank must focus “all of its work on climate and sustainability targets”<br /><br />A new coal-fired power plant, which the World Bank is considering sponsoring, is slated to replace the ageing Kosovo A power station, outside Prishtina. Photo: Karl Mathiesen<br />A new coal-fired power plant, which the World Bank is considering sponsoring, is slated to replace the ageing Kosovo A power station, outside Prishtina. Photo: Karl Mathiesen<br /><br />By Karl Mathiesen in Berlin<br />The World Bank must end its support for the industries that cause climate change, Germany’s federal development minister Gerd Müller has said.<br /><br />On Wednesday, German chancellor Angela Merkel and Müller met with World Bank President Jim Yong Kim to sign a cooperation agreement on climate change.<br /><br />A statement from the German government said Müller had used the moment to call on the World Bank to put “an end to investments in obsolete and climate-damaging technologies”.1<br /><br />“The World Bank must also focus all of its work on climate and sustainability targets,” said Müller.<br /><br />World Bank cash for fossil fuels: The worst kind of hypocrisy<br /><br />The bank is considering finance for a new coal plant in Kosovo – despite an internal policy ruling out such projects except in rare circumstances. It has also announced support for large gas projects in Azerbaijan and Ghana among others.<br /><br />One study has found that the bank’s annual contribution to the wider fossil fuel sector was more than $3bn in 2014.1<br /><br />Germany contributes €105m to the World Bank’s climate programmes. Under the agreement signed on Wednesday this will be targeted towards helping poor countries cut carbon, providing insurance to communities who may suffer climate impacts and forest sustainability programmes.<br /><br />Müller said Germany and the World Bank would protect developing countries “through insurance against droughts and flooding, through investments in the vital preservation of forests. Climate change is also an opportunity, especially in the developing countries: renewable energies create jobs and are good for human health”.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/12/01/germany-tells-world-bank-to-quit-funding-fossil-fuels/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>The world needs more energy!</b><br /><br /><i>Poor countries have a right to use fossil fuels and will no longer let anyone stop us</i><br /><br />By Steven Lyazi, from Uganda<br /><br />Our planet is blessed with abundant resources that can generate enormous energy, provide raw materials for wondrous technologies, and build modern homes, roads and other structures – to support every man, woman and child on this earth. But can and will political powers make them available to the people who need them?<br /><br />Of all these resources, energy is the most important. Nothing happens without energy.<br /><br />For most of mankind’s history, human or animal muscle, wood and animal dung, water power, and plant or animal oil provided our energy. But the amount and quality of that energy was limited, and therefore what people could do was also limited.<br /><br />Then, almost suddenly, people began using coal, and then oil, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear power. Our abilities, and our dreams, began to reach for the heavens – at least in many countries. Sadly, many other countries lagged far behind, and many still do.<br /><br />They are held back, condemned to continued energy poverty – and thus to real poverty and the diseases, malnutrition and desperation that go with that absence of modern energy. This is partly because many nations are governed by incompetent, corrupt leaders, who care only about enriching themselves, their families, and their close friends, allies and supporters.<br /><br />But it is also because callous, imperialistic people in rich countries use exaggerated, imaginary or phony environmental concerns and fake disasters to justify laws, regulations and excuses not to let poor countries use fossil fuels or nuclear power or develop their economies.<br /><br />They tell us we should only use renewable energy. They say nuclear power is dangerous, and oil, gas and coal are dirty and cause dangerous climate change. They don’t seem to think or care about the poverty, diseases and starvation that we suffer because we do not have fossil fuels.<br /><br />And when they talk about renewable energy, they mean the very limited energy – and economic growth – that come from wind and solar power, or from growing crops for energy instead of to feed our hungry people. They even oppose hydroelectric power for poor nations.<br /><br />They are rich and well fed, enjoying amazing homes and jobs and technologies in their modern countries. But they tell us poor Africans (and other people) that we must limit our energy and dreams to whatever can come from expensive, insufficient kinds of energies to serve our large and growing populations. This is greedy and selfish, the kind of attitude of people who only think of themselves.<br /><br />Yes, they use renewable energy, but only a little. Almost all their energy still comes from oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydro power. Only a tiny amount comes from wind, solar or biofuels – that they say should be our only sources of energy.<br /><br />They have money and power, and they can influence what happens to us. But they are causing massive poverty, disease, starvation and death in third world countries.<br /><br />I support clean energy and don’t want to see dangerous global warming. I agree that everyone should help ensure that we live in a clean environment. Everyone wants that, and to see their children and grandchildren living in a clean environment.<br /><br />But that does not mean we should accept more poverty. It does not mean these rich, powerful people should be able to take away our right to live. It does not mean they have a right to put make-believe scare stories in our papers, on our televisions and radios, and on the internet.<br /><br />It does not mean they should invent claims that our planet is boiling and we are causing droughts and floods – and so we should throw away coal and other cheap energies that we need to survive.<br /><br />Maybe they are right, and humans are warming the earth or changing the climate – a little. But our weather and climate have always changed, and the world was even warmer during the dinosaur era than it is today, and much colder during the ice ages, with no human activities. Climate change has been going on for millions of years ago, but that doesn’t mean today’s changes are because of humans or will be disasters. <br /><br />Environmental agencies and groups say the world is changing and try to tell us what to do to prevent these changes, which they say will all be bad. But getting rid of poverty and disease is also a big change that would be good for all of us, and cannot happen without fossil fuels.<br /><br />We’ve all been scared to death by horror movies, especially films that are just plausible enough to make us think it could happen. But when these movies (or computer models) are used to scare us away from fossil fuels, that is wrong and we should not be frightened.<br /><br />What these rich country movie actors, politicians, regulators, scientists and activists forget is that our planet and environment have existed for millions of years, have changed over and over, and will continue to exist either with or without human interference. But we humans have to live here too.<br /><br />Denying people their right to use fossil fuels is the worst thing someone can do to a fellow human. Western powers developed massively due to cheap fossil fuels and today live like kings. They have no right to deny their living standards to people in developing countries.<br /><br />Who invented the terms “developing countries” or “third world countries” anyway”? All countries have been developing at some point. In fact, they are always still developing, all the time.<br /><br />The only wrong interpretation is to say “third world countries” do not have a God-given right to use all their energy, minerals and other resources to develop themselves, and get rich, create good jobs for their people, end poverty and disease, and grow enough food to make everyone well fed and healthy.<br /><br />In fact, here is a thought for all African leaders: A collective mindset supporting development will make Africa as great as any other region on earth. We all just need to unite around this idea.<br /><br />The recent United States elections disappointed many people, but made many others happy. To me, they may be a very good thing. They might mean the new President Trump will be a good leader for the entire world. He might make more people question these claims that fossil fuels cause dangerous global warming – and encourage everyone to use more oil, gas and coal to improve our lives, until smart people someday discover different energy sources that really do work.<br /><br />We all desire to be healthy and live better lives, just like people in developed countries. Yes, we have had greedy, selfish leaders in the past who might have contributed to our status today. But we can and must learn from our mistakes, and Mr. Trump wants to correct his and Mr. Obama’s mistakes.<br /><br />African and other countries need abundant energy for economic growth. They need all kinds of energy, especially fossil fuels, to become modern and make people’s lives better.<br /><br />Anyone who tries to prevent us from using these energy resources is denying us our right to improve our lives, and even our right to live, which is the most fundamental right of any human. That is wrong and immoral, and we will no longer tolerate it.<br /><br /><i>Via email</i><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic</b><br /><br /><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; color: #666666; display: inline-block; font-family: &quot;Whitney SSm&quot;, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">By</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: &quot;Whitney SSm&quot;, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: &quot;Whitney SSm&quot;, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 600; text-transform: uppercase;">ROGER PIELKE JR.</span><br /><div><span style="color: #666666; font-family: Whitney SSm, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; font-weight: 600; text-transform: uppercase;"><br /></span></span>My research was attacked by thought police in journalism, activist groups funded by billionaires and even the White House.<br /><br />Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”<br /><br />WikiLeaks provides a window into a world I’ve seen up close for decades: the debate over what to do about climate change, and the role of science in that argument. Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community, my long experience shows what can happen when politicians and media turn against inconvenient research—which we’ve seen under Republican and Democratic presidents.<br /><br />I understand why Mr. Podesta—most recently Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman—wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.<br /><br />More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests—even our own?<br /><br />I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.<br /><br />Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians. In 2011 writers in the journal Foreign Policy signaled that some accused me of being a “climate-change denier.” I earned the title, the authors explained, by “questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports.” That an academic who raised questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an area of his expertise was tarred as a denier reveals the groupthink at work.<br /><br />Yet I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases. The graph was later revealed to have been based on invented and inaccurate information, as I documented in my book “The Climate Fix.” The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report. He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures.<br /><br />When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.” Whoops.<br /><br />The IPCC never acknowledged the snafu, but subsequent reports got the science right: There is not a strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change.<br /><br />Yes, storms and other extremes still occur, with devastating human consequences, but history shows they could be far worse. No Category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane has made landfall in the U.S. since Hurricane Wilma in 2005, by far the longest such period on record. This means that cumulative economic damage from hurricanes over the past decade is some $70 billion less than the long-term average would lead us to expect, based on my research with colleagues. This is good news, and it should be OK to say so. Yet in today’s hyper-partisan climate debate, every instance of extreme weather becomes a political talking point.<br /><br />For a time I called out politicians and reporters who went beyond what science can support, but some journalists won’t hear of this. In 2011 and 2012, I pointed out on my blog and social media that the lead climate reporter at the New York Times,Justin Gillis, had mischaracterized the relationship of climate change and food shortages, and the relationship of climate change and disasters. His reporting wasn’t consistent with most expert views, or the evidence. In response he promptly blocked me from his Twitter feed. Other reporters did the same.<br /><br />In August this year on Twitter, I criticized poor reporting on the website Mashable about a supposed coming hurricane apocalypse—including a bad misquote of me in the cartoon role of climate skeptic. (The misquote was later removed.) The publication’s lead science editor, Andrew Freedman, helpfully explained via Twitter that this sort of behavior “is why you’re on many reporters’ ‘do not call’ lists despite your expertise.”<br /><br />I didn’t know reporters had such lists. But I get it. No one likes being told that he misreported scientific research, especially on climate change. Some believe that connecting extreme weather with greenhouse gases helps to advance the cause of climate policy. Plus, bad news gets clicks.<br /><br />Yet more is going on here than thin-skinned reporters responding petulantly to a vocal professor. In 2015 I was quoted in the Los Angeles Times, by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Paige St. John, making the rather obvious point that politicians use the weather-of-the-moment to make the case for action on climate change, even if the scientific basis is thin or contested.<br /><br />Ms. St. John was pilloried by her peers in the media. Shortly thereafter, she emailed me what she had learned: “You should come with a warning label: Quoting Roger Pielke will bring a hailstorm down on your work from the London Guardian, Mother Jones, and Media Matters.”<br /><br />Or look at the journalists who helped push me out of FiveThirtyEight. My first article there, in 2014, was based on the consensus of the IPCC and peer-reviewed research. I pointed out that the global cost of disasters was increasing at a rate slower than GDP growth, which is very good news. Disasters still occur, but their economic and human effect is smaller than in the past. It’s not terribly complicated.<br /><br />That article prompted an intense media campaign to have me fired. Writers at Slate, Salon, the New Republic, the New York Times, the Guardian and others piled on.<br /><br />In March of 2014, FiveThirtyEight editor Mike Wilson demoted me from staff writer to freelancer. A few months later I chose to leave the site after it became clear it wouldn’t publish me. The mob celebrated. ClimateTruth.org, founded by former Center for American Progress staffer Brad Johnson, and advised by Penn State’s Michael Mann, called my departure a “victory for climate truth.” The Center for American Progress promised its donor Mr. Steyer more of the same.<br /><br />Yet the climate thought police still weren’t done. In 2013 committees in the House and Senate invited me to a several hearings to summarize the science on disasters and climate change. As a professor at a public university, I was happy to do so. My testimony was strong, and it was well aligned with the conclusions of the IPCC and the U.S. government’s climate-science program. Those conclusions indicate no overall increasing trend in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or droughts—in the U.S. or globally.<br /><br />In early 2014, not long after I appeared before Congress, President Obama’s science adviser John Holdren testified before the same Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He was asked about his public statements that appeared to contradict the scientific consensus on extreme weather events that I had earlier presented. Mr. Holdren responded with the all-too-common approach of attacking the messenger, telling the senators incorrectly that my views were “not representative of the mainstream scientific opinion.” Mr. Holdren followed up by posting a strange essay, of nearly 3,000 words, on the White House website under the heading, “An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr.,” where it remains today.<br /><br />I suppose it is a distinction of a sort to be singled out in this manner by the president’s science adviser. Yet Mr. Holdren’s screed reads more like a dashed-off blog post from the nutty wings of the online climate debate, chock-full of errors and misstatements.<br /><br />But when the White House puts a target on your back on its website, people notice. Almost a year later Mr. Holdren’s missive was the basis for an investigation of me by Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Grijalva explained in a letter to my university’s president that I was being investigated because Mr. Holdren had “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change.” He made the letter public.<br /><br />The “investigation” turned out to be a farce. In the letter, Rep. Grijalva suggested that I—and six other academics with apparently heretical views—might be on the payroll of Exxon Mobil (or perhaps the Illuminati, I forget). He asked for records detailing my research funding, emails and so on. After some well-deserved criticism from the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, Rep. Grijalva deleted the letter from his website. The University of Colorado complied with Rep. Grijalva’s request and responded that I have never received funding from fossil-fuel companies. My heretical views can be traced to research support from the U.S. government.<br /><br />But the damage to my reputation had been done, and perhaps that was the point. Studying and engaging on climate change had become decidedly less fun. So I started researching and teaching other topics and have found the change in direction refreshing. Don’t worry about me: I have tenure and supportive campus leaders and regents. No one is trying to get me fired for my new scholarly pursuits.<br /><br />But the lesson is that a lone academic is no match for billionaires, well-funded advocacy groups, the media, Congress and the White House. If academics—in any subject—are to play a meaningful role in public debate, the country will have to do a better job supporting good-faith researchers, even when their results are unwelcome. This goes for Republicans and Democrats alike, and to the administration of President-elect Trump.<br /><br />Academics and the media in particular should support viewpoint diversity instead of serving as the handmaidens of political expediency by trying to exclude voices or damage reputations and careers. If academics and the media won’t support open debate, who will?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br /></div>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-42287376391616440772016-12-04T01:29:00.001+13:002016-12-04T01:31:32.806+13:00<br /><br /><b>Total dishonesty about last Thursday's blackout in South Australia</b><br /><br /><i>The S.A. government is shrilling that the new blackout had "nothing to do" with the previous big one in September. &nbsp;I suppose that there is some trivial sense in which that is true but the root cause of both blackouts is the same: &nbsp;South Australia does not have ANY baseload power of its own. &nbsp;Had they not decommissioned all their coal-fired stations, neither blackout would have happened. &nbsp;Their windmills are just not a reliable source of power. &nbsp;During the latest incident they were delivering only 6% of their capacity. <br /><br />When the big wind hit in September and shut down the windmills the South Australians could easily have spun up their coal-fired generators to take the load -- if they still had them. &nbsp;And the same thing applies to the recent loss of supply. <br /><br />You have got to have hydrocarbon or nuclear powered generators to get reliable supply and S.A. just does not have enough. &nbsp;All they have are some small gas-fired ones. &nbsp;They rely on importing power from hydrocarbon-powered generators in Victoria but Victoria has its own problems -- and will soon have much bigger ones with the closedown of the Hazelwood generator.<br /><br />The South Australians were so proud of themselves for having such a "Green" electricity system but it was a fantasy. &nbsp;They need to get a couple of their coal-fired generators spinning again or businesses will start leaving the state and taking jobs with them. New investments will CERTAINLY grind to a halt now. See below<br /></i><br /><br />South Australia's electricity system separated from the national power grid overnight, prompting a stern warning from BHP Billiton about threats to Australian jobs and investment.<br /><br />About 200,000 homes and businesses lost power for over an hour, but BHP’s Olympic Dam operations in the north of the state were interrupted for about four hours.<br /><br />BHP CEO Andrew Mackenzie issued an urgent warning to policy-makers after the latest incident, which comes two months after the statewide blackout led to about two weeks of lost production at Olympic Dam.<br /><br />“Olympic Dam’s latest outage shows Australia’s investability and jobs are placed in peril by the failure of policy to both reduce emissions and secure affordable, dispatchable and uninterrupted power,” he said in a statement.<br /><br />“The challenge to reduce emissions and grow the economy cannot fall to renewables alone. “This is a wake-up call ahead of the COAG meeting and power supply and security must be top of the agenda and urgently addressed.”<br /><br />Opposition Leader Steven Marshall said Labor had “chased cheap and reliable power out of South Australia”.<br /><br />“South Australians are now saddled with the most expensive and least reliable electricity system in Australia,” he said.<br /><br />“The statement from BHP this morning demonstrates how dangerous this situation has become. The CEO of the world’s biggest mining company has singled out South Australia’s fragile electricity system as a threat to mining in Australia.<br /><br />“Affordable and reliable power is critical to running a business – it’s not a luxury, it’s an essential!”<br /><br /><a href="http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/12/01/sa-disconnects-from-national-power-grid-overnight/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Warmists are getting cautious with their prophecies</b><br /><br /><i>The authors below show that even with conventional Warmist asumptions the degree of warming to be expected in the near future could be quite low. &nbsp;The 21st century "hiatus" must be getting to them now that El Nino has finished. &nbsp;The figures are now in to show that the recent warming was just a blip</i><br /><br />Prospects for a prolonged slowdown in global warming in the early 21st century<br /><br />Thomas R. Knutson et al<br /><br />Abstract<br /><br />Global mean temperature over 1998 to 2015 increased at a slower rate (0.1 K decade−1) compared with the ensemble mean (forced) warming rate projected by Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) models (0.2 K decade−1). Here we investigate the prospects for this slower rate to persist for a decade or more. The slower rate could persist if the transient climate response is overestimated by CMIP5 models by a factor of two, as suggested by recent low-end estimates. Alternatively, using CMIP5 models’ warming rate, the slower rate could still persist due to strong multidecadal internal variability cooling. Combining the CMIP5 ensemble warming rate with internal variability episodes from a single climate model—having the strongest multidecadal variability among CMIP5 models—we estimate that the warming slowdown (<0.1 K decade−1 trend beginning in 1998) could persist, due to internal variability cooling, through 2020, 2025 or 2030 with probabilities 16%, 11% and 6%, respectively. <br><br /><a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13676">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Dakota Access protesters accused of destroying environment in order to save it</b><br /><br />In the name of saving the environment, thousands of green activists fighting to stop the Dakota Access pipeline are making a huge mess.<br /><br />Those familiar with the camps near Cannon Ball, North Dakota, increasingly are distressed over the pits of human waste and garbage pockmarking the formerly pristine prairie revered by the Standing Rock Sioux as sacred ancestral land.<br /><br />Rob Keller, spokesman for the Morton County Sheriff’s Department, said the protesters are “saying one thing and doing another” when it comes to safeguarding the environment.<br /><br />“We’ve seen pictures of trenches and the garbage thrown in there. So that’s protecting the land?” Mr. Keller said. “And then the snow came in, and I’m sure it’s just a muddy mess now, because that’s river-bottom water, which is silt. It will be a mess.”<br /><br />Even Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II, who has urged protesters to come “stand with Standing Rock” against the pipeline, is disgusted with how the environmental activists living in the camps have treated the federal property.<br /><br />“Before this entire movement started, that was some of the most beautiful land around,” Mr. Archambault told the news website Vice. “There was a place down there where eagles, over 100 eagles would come and land. There were game down there — deer, pheasants, elk, geese. Now, it’s occupied by people. And when masses of people come to one place, we don’t take care of it.”<br /><br />What’s especially alarming is that the camps are located in a flood plain, meaning that the waste and garbage will be carried into the Cannonball River and the water supply as the snow melts and submerges the area.<br /><br />Mr. Archambault compared the environmental damage inflicted by the protesters to that of fossil fuel companies.<br /><br />“We’re no different than the oil company, if we’re fighting for water,” said Mr. Archambault. “What’s going to happen when people leave? Who has to clean it up? Who has to refurbish it? It’s going to be us, the people who live here.”<br /><br />National environmental groups backing the protest, including Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, 350.org and the Indigenous Environmental Network, did not respond to requests asking for comment, but Greenpeace did.<br /><br />Greenpeace spokesman Perry Wheeler said the blame for any damage lies with those behind the $3.8 billion, 1,172-mile project, which Energy Transfer Partners is building almost entirely on private land in order to transport oil from the Bakken field in North Dakota to Illinois.<br /><br />“Any environmental concerns sit at the feet of the pipeline decision-makers,” Mr. Wheeler said in an email.<br /><br />After issuing an easement for a 1,100-foot stretch of federal land in North Dakota, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is stalling the project as it reviews the tribe’s concerns. The four-state pipeline is about 90 percent complete.<br /><br />“The best way to ensure the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and our earth are treated the right way is for the Administration to stop what should have never started,” said Mr. Wheeler.<br /><br />State and local officials say they are worried about the environmental damage to the area, but there’s only so much they can do, given that the camps are on federal land.<br /><br />Scott A. Radig, director of the state division of waste management, said he sent a letter with photos of protesters dumping and burning waste in pits to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over the area, but that he has heard nothing back. That was in September.<br /><br />“They did not respond to us,” said Mr. Radig. “It is federal land, but even though it’s federal land, they still have to follow state laws on state management practices.”<br /><br />The Army Corps, Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency did not respond immediately to a request for comment.<br /><br />Mr. Radig said he has been in contact with Alison Two Bears, the tribe’s environmental director.<br /><br />“She said that when the camp was closed that they would send us their plan for making sure the site is cleaned up and restored to its original conditions,” he said.<br /><br />Despite its hard line on other environmental transgressors, the Obama administration has given the protesters a pass on camps north of the Cannonball River, allowing them to remain illegally for months and insisting the activists will not be removed forcibly if they defy a Monday deadline to leave.<br /><br />“They’re on [what] I’ll call a federal refuge because the Army Corps and the Obama administration have refused to demand that they leave that federal land,” North Dakota Lt. Gov. Drew Wrigley said in a Thursday interview with WDAY-AM’s Rob Port.<br /><br />“We’ve had no authority to go in and remove them,” said Mr. Wrigley, a Republican. “But now the Army Corps is saying they have to leave by the fifth. We’ll see.”<br /><br />This week’s snowstorm and subfreezing temperatures have done what the administration has not by motivating many activists to leave their tents, teepees and campers and return home, or at least check into the reservation hotel and casino.<br /><br />Even some activists are fed up with the sanitation of the camps, criticizing outsiders who have treated the protest as a hippie festival instead of helping keep the area clean.<br /><br />“When Chairman Archambault talks about the destruction of the land with pitching of tents, digging pits in Mother Earth, the garbage and human waste, he is correct,” Yvette Hatchere wrote on the Red Warrior Camp’s Facebook page.<br /><br />“How would some of you feel if we camped in your backyard &amp; left garbage behind and left holes in the ground,” she said. “Well, he feels the same way. Pick up your garbage and find ways to get rid of it.”<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/1/dakota-access-protesters-accused-of-destroying-env/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Climate Reality Deniers Are Trying to ‘Bork’ Trump’s EPA Transition Leader</b><br /><br />President-elect Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition leader, Myron Ebell, is a huge threat to the green gravy train. Now, with billions of crony dollars at stake, the green slander machine is doing all it can to slime him.<br /><br />Following their standard tactic, advocates of big government cronyism have picked someone to demonize as the face of small-government, pro-freedom ideals.<br /><br />Ebell is that face, and he’s enduring the left’s vilification for voicing reasonable thought on climate change policy. Though he bears the burden with grace and humor, there is no excuse for the personal attacks, which are designed to distract attention from the high stakes of the debate.<br /><br />What’s at stake for big green is billions upon billions of dollars taken from taxpayers and consumers and given to green crony businesses. Just for wind energy alone, grants, tax credits, loan guarantees, and other subsidies add up to at least $176 billion.<br /><br />What isn’t at stake—contrary to the left’s talking points—is the Earth’s climate.<br /><br />As costly as our current energy and climate policies are to the economy (they would cost the U.S. a net loss t of 400,000 jobs and up to $2.5 trillion), they are projected to have negligible impacts on global temperatures—even if you believe the questionable climate models of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).<br /><br />When judged by their actual effect, it becomes clear that the real goal of international climate policies is a power and money grab that no one, not even its most vocal supporters, believes will have much impact on the climate.<br /><br />In fact, Christiana Figueres—until recently the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change—noted that the goal of those policies was to rearrange the world economy:<br /><br />This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.<br /><br />The big problem for the framework convention, the IPCC, renewable energy hustlers, and climate rent-seekers of all sorts is that Ebell is on to their game. So, out come the daggers of personal attacks and character assassination.<br /><br />Many in the media are more than happy to abet the groups who perpetrate these attacks. The Media Research Center provides a nice sampler of these attacks and associated yellow journalism here.<br /><br />It’s not at all clear what the name-callers mean when they call Ebell a “climate denier,” but in a bizarre semantic twist, they appear to mean that he is not a hysterical climate data denier.<br /><br />Like most skeptics, Ebell recognizes the basic carbon dioxide science: Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere may somewhat increase warming. But he also recognizes the much more important question: How much is this “somewhat”?<br /><br />Ebell and those following the numbers know that the Earth’s warming to date is much less than the IPCC models predicted and that the actual data don’t point to a climate catastrophe.<br /><br />In addition, the unhinged claims of ever-worsening, extreme climate events don’t square with the data either. There are no upward trends in droughts, floods, tornadoes, or hurricanes.<br /><br />Because knowledge of these facts is such a threat to the climate-industrial complex, anyone who dares to expose the truth comes under threat of personal destruction.<br /><br />In 1987, “Borking” became a term for getting shot down after the U.S. Senate torpedoed Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. We should not allow green activists to make “Ebelling” a synonym for “Borking.”<br /><br /><a href="http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/01/climate-data-deniers-are-trying-to-bork-trumps-epa-transition-leader/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Climate Regs Impede Carbon Reductions</b><br /><br />Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, participating nations were to pursue a roughly 5% emissions reduction, relative to 1990 levels, by 2012. The endeavor was considered a success by most environmental warriors. As a newly released Breakthrough Institute study notes, “Every country achieved their emissions reduction commitments.” But was the agreement really all it’s cracked up to be? The aforementioned Breakthrough study goes on to reveal that, no, it’s not.<br /><br />“Overall, the carbon intensity of economies that were party to the Kyoto Accord fell more rapidly in the decade before the agreement was signed than in the decade after,” according to the report. “In the 10 years before signing, the compound annual growth rate for carbon intensity was -0.7%. In the 10 years after signing it was only -0.2%.”<br /><br />“Similarly,” the study continues, “the low-carbon share of energy was growing at an annual rate of 1.0% in the ten years prior to 1997, and only at a rate of 0.3% annually for the ten years after, meaning deployment of clean energy stalled or slowed in comparison to fossil fuels in these countries after they signed Kyoto.” What’s the explanation? “What becomes clear in looking at climate policy as it has been implemented at the international level is that most countries have only been willing to commit to decarbonization targets that are consistent with expected business-as-usual trends, accounting for measures that they have intended to take in any event.”<br /><br />Thankfully, America did not participate in this scheme, thanks to the Republican Senate blocking Bill Clinton and Al Gore. And though the Obama administration cosigned the U.S. to last year’s Paris climate accord, past efforts to implement a carbon-reducing system would have fallen short, just like the Kyoto Protocol. According to Reason’s Ronald Bailey, “[T]he Breakthrough analysts conclude that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have actually fallen faster since 2010 than they would have had the the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme been adopted by Congress. The U.S. trend toward lower carbon dioxide emissions was helped along by the global financial crisis, a weak recovery, and the ongoing switch from coal to cheap natural gas for electricity generation.”<br /><br />As for what comes next, Breakthrough says, “Even should the next administration withdraw from the Paris Agreement and abandon the Clean Power Plan, the United States might outperform the commitments that the Obama administration made in Paris if it keeps the nation’s nuclear fleet online, continues tax incentives for deployment of wind and solar energy, and stays out of the way of the shale revolution. By contrast, a Democratic administration indifferent to the fate of the nation’s existing nuclear fleet and hostile to shale gas production might ultimately slow US decarbonization trends.”<br /><br />Given these circumstances, the most pertinent question is this: Why are ecofascists hampering our ability to reduce emissions, which can be accomplished without onerous government regulations?<br /><br /><a href="https://patriotpost.us/posts/46198">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a></0><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-75128049566193729822016-12-02T01:32:00.002+13:002016-12-02T01:33:35.785+13:00<br /><br /><b>Reversing Warmist spin</b><br /><br /><i>The latest article from shifty Peter Hannam, an Australian environmental writer, gives us a good example of how Warmists "spin" their reports. He has some boring statistics to convey but by biased language has made them seem to suggest global warming. &nbsp;Let me use different language to describe the same stats. &nbsp;I will suggest cooling:<br /><br /><blockquote>"A long run of overcast days in Sydney has finally come to an end. &nbsp;Sydney is at last back to where we were in 1990 but will it last? <br /><br />Last month's temperature had three Novembers warmer than it in the past<br /><br />"It's been persistently cool, particularly in the West," Acacia Pepler, a climatologist at the bureau, said.<br /><br />The month had 18 days above 25 degrees, at last breaking a long run of cool days -- going back to 1894<br /><br />The past six months have also been a standout for Sydney. A relatively wet winter - with rainfall about 250 millimetres above average - switched to sharply drier conditions, with rain tallies sinking 100 mm below average. &nbsp;But there were similar conditions in 1885"<br /></blockquote><br />Contrast the above with what appears below. &nbsp;Note that I have unspun only the statistics Hannam has chosen to mention. &nbsp;They were undoubtedly the one best suited to his cause. &nbsp;If they can be shown to suggest cooling, one wonders what all the unmentioned statistics show. <br /><br />Deception is the name of the game for Warmists. &nbsp;Honest reporting is in general alien to them. &nbsp;It has to be. &nbsp;They cannot accept the plain truth of the climate record, which just shows normal ups and downs with no significant trend<br /></i><br /><br />Sydney has just capped its sunniest November since 1990, with the relatively warm and dry conditions set to extend well into the start of summer.<br /><br />Last month was the city's equal-fourth warmest November for maximum temperatures in records going back to 1858, with average temperatures reaching 26.1 degrees, the Bureau of Meteorology said in its latest report. Sydney Airport had an average of 9.5 hours of sunshine during the month.<br /><br />"It's been persistently warm, particularly in the east," Acacia Pepler, a climatologist at the bureau, said.<br /><br />The month had 18 days above 25 degrees, the most since 1894 , and its coldest day was a mild 22.7 degrees. All previous Novembers had at least one day below 21 degrees in the city.<br /><br />The lack of cool days extended across spring, with just six days failing the reach 20 degrees. That's the fewest on record and roughly one-fifth of the average of 31 such days, the bureau said.<br /><br />The past six months have also been a standout for Sydney. A relatively wet winter - with rainfall about 250 millimetres above average - switched to sharply drier conditions, with rain tallies sinking 100 mm below average.<br /><br />That's the biggest turn in the weather for the city in 53 years, and the third-most on record with 1885 the other rival year, Brett Dutschke, senior meteorologist with Weatherzone, said.<br /><br />"Since the start of October, it's been drying out" in coast regions, Mr Dutschke said, adding the western parts of the state had more recent rains and will take longer to cure.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/sydneys-sunniest-patch-since-1990-points-to-warm-start-in-a-summer-of-fires-and-heatwaves-20161130-gt1g0f.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Certified-organic GMO Golden Rice</b><br /><br />Mischa Popoff<br /><br />A half-million kids under the age of 5 will die again this year due to Vitamin-A deficiency in the Third World. GMO Golden Rice could provide the nutrients to prevent blindness and death, but it has been awaiting approval for over a decade thanks largely to organic activists who claim this crop will threaten organic crops.<br /><br />As someone who worked for 5 years as a USDA organic inspector, please let me assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.<br /><br />Not only will GMO Golden Rice alleviate the suffering of millions, it could also – in point-of-fact – be grown organically! So I joined with 11 scientists and wrote an article last year in The Daily Caller about producing the world’s first organic-GMO crop. I then wrote a brief follow-up immediately after Mr. Trump won the presidency.<br /><br />Would you please help get the word out about this? GMO Golden Rice has been given to the world, free of charge, by its inventor, Dr. Ingo Potrykus. All that stands in its way is the lack of political will.<br /><br />Mr. Trump will soon pick America’s next Secretary of Agriculture, and it is my hope that he will choose someone who understands this issue. Organic activists claim GMOs threaten organic crops. But, as is often the case with anti-everything activists, they have never bothered to read their own federal standards for organic production.<br /><br />I hope you will help. A decade is a long time to wait for a humanitarian solution to such a tragedy.<br /><br /><i>Via email</i><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Seasons Without Major Hurricane Strike</b><br /><br />Today the United Sates completes a record 11 straight hurricane season without a major hurricane striking the U.S. mainland, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.<br /><br />An unprecedented 11 years, one month and six days has passed since the last major hurricane struck the U.S. mainland, according to data going back to 1851 compiled by NOAA.<br /><br />“The 2016 hurricane season will end officially on November 30. Hurricane Wilma was the last major hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale) to strike the U.S. (October 24, 2005),” NOAA spokesman Dennis Feltgen told CNSNews.com.<br /><br />Major hurricanes, defined on the scale as a Category 3 or above, are characterized by wind speeds of 111 mph or higher and strong storm surges capable of causing “devastating” or “catastrophic” damage.<br /><br />“It is important to note that this scale covers only the wind impact,” Feltgen noted. “It has nothing to do with the water impact, which accounts for nearly 90 percent of the fatalities - 50 percent of which occur from storm surge and 25 percent from inland flooding.<br /><br />“The U.S. has seen major impacts from many hurricanes with significantly lower winds on the scale. &nbsp;Sandy in 2012 and Matthew in 2016 are just two examples,” he pointed out.<br /><br />The U.S. has now experienced more than 11 years of below-normal levels of hurricane activity since 2005, when four major hurricanes – Dennis, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma – struck the continental U.S., killing nearly 4,000 people and causing nearly $160 billion in damages.<br /><br />Last month, Hurricane Matthew - the first Category 5 hurricane to form in the Atlantic since 2007 – was downgraded to a Category 1 by the time it made landfall in the U.S. on October 8th, two weeks short of the 11-year anniversary of Hurricane Wilma’s landfall.<br /><br />About 97 percent of all Atlantic basin hurricanes form during hurricane season, which lasts from June 1st to November 30th. Peak hurricane activity typically occurs between mid-August and late October.<br /><br />Of the total 991 hurricanes recorded between 1851 and 2015, only 12 have been off-season hurricanes that formed between December and May, according to NOAA. Of those, none made landfall in the continental U.S.<br /><br />CNSNews asked Dr. Gerry Bell, a hurricane specialist and research meteorologist at the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center, if NOAA had an explanation for the record-breaking major hurricane hiatus in the U.S.<br /><br />“I see two main reasons for the recent lack of major hurricane landfalls,” Bell replied.<br /><br />“1) For the U.S. East Coast, the overall wind patterns have been steering more hurricanes out to sea before reaching land; and<br /><br />2) For the U.S. Gulf Coast, exceptionally unfavorable atmospheric conditions such as strong vertical wind shear and sinking motion have been preventing hurricanes from forming and strengthening over the Caribbean Sea, and have also been preventing hurricanes from moving across the Caribbean Sea.<br /><br />“As a result, there has been a sharp reduction in the number of hurricanes that would typically migrate into the Gulf of Mexico, which then reduces the likelihood of a land-falling major hurricane along the Gulf Coast,” Bell explained.<br /><br />“A unique aspect of the current U.S. major hurricane landfall drought is its duration, due to the simultaneous lack of landfalls along both the Atlantic and the Gulf Coasts,” he pointed out.<br /><br />The historical record shows that the duration of the current major hurricane drought is “unprecedented,” Bell continued.<br /><br />“The periods with no major hurricane landfalls varies widely between the Gulf Coast and the Atlantic Coast,” he added.<br /><br />“The Atlantic Coast had a 19-year gap [between] 1966-1984 and an 18-year gap [between]1910-1927. The gaps are much shorter for the Gulf Coast, whose previous longest gap was 6 years (1951-1956 and 1986-1991).<br /><br />&nbsp;“In contrast, many seasons during both 1966-1984 and 1910-1927 featured major hurricane landfalls along the Gulf Coast while the Atlantic Coast had none. The Gulf Coast saw 7 seasons with major hurricane landfalls during 1910-1927, and 8 seasons with major hurricane landfalls during 1966-1984,” he added.<br /><br />“Therefore, it appears that the duration of the current meteorological conditions, which have simultaneously suppressed major hurricane landfalls along both the U.S. East Coast and Gulf Coast, is unprecedented in the historical record dating back to 1900,” he told CNSNews.<br /><br />“However, please note that the historical record deteriorates in the early 1900’s and earlier due to a combination of 1) lack of satellites, and 2) low population densities along both the Gulf Coast and portions of the Atlantic Coast (especially the southeast).”<br /><br />Bell also pointed out that Category 1 or 2 hurricanes such as Matthew or Sandy can still cause enormous property damage and loss of life.<br /><br />“I think it is a bit misleading to focus only on major hurricane landfalls, since there have certainly been numerous tropical storm and hurricane landfalls during the past decade that have caused significant damage, flooding, loss of life, hardship, etc.” he told CNSNews.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/noaa-record-breaking-11th-hurricane-season-ends-no-major-strikes">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Lomborg on Trump’s climate plan </b><br /><br />The election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both houses have terrified environmentalists and climate campaigners, who have declared that the next four years will be a “disaster.”<br /><br />Fear is understandable. We have much to learn about the new administration’s plans. But perhaps surprisingly, what little we know offers some cause for hope.<br /><br />What really matters is not rhetoric but policy. So far, we know that President Trump will drop the Paris climate change treaty. This is far from the world-ending event that some suggest and offers an opportunity for a smarter approach.<br /><br />Even ardent supporters acknowledge that the Paris treaty by itself will do little to rein in global warming. The United Nations estimates that if every country were to make every single promised carbon cut between 2016 and 2030 to the fullest extent and there was no cheating, carbon dioxide emissions would still only be cut by one-hundredth of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius). The Paris treaty’s 2016-2030 pledges would reduce temperature rises around 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. If maintained throughout the rest of the century, temperature rises would be cut by 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit.<br /><br />At the same time, these promises will be costly. Trying to cut carbon dioxide, even with an efficient tax, makes cheap energy more expensive — and this slows economic growth.<br /><br />My calculations using the best peer-reviewed economic models show the cost of the Paris promises – through slower gross domestic product growth from higher energy costs — would reach $1 trillion to $2 trillion every year from 2030. U.S. vows alone — to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 — would reduce GDP by more than $150 billion annually.<br /><br />So Trump’s promise to dump Paris will matter very little to temperature rises, and it will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end.<br /><br />Climate economists have found that green energy R&amp;D investment would be a much more efficient approach.<br /><br />This is very much in line with Trump’s campaign promise of “investment in research and development across the broad landscape of academia” and with its suggestion that we could develop “energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels.”<br /><br />This investment in U.S. ingenuity could help innovate the price of green energy down below fossil fuels. Only then will we truly be able to stop climate change.<br /><br />Statements by Trump’s campaign also indicate that the next administration will create a global development and aid policy that recognizes that climate is one problem among many.<br /><br />Asked about global warming, the campaign responded, “Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population.”<br /><br />This would be a big change. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development analyzed almost all aid from the United States and other rich nations and found that about one-fourth is climate-related aid.<br /><br />This is immoral when 2 billion people suffer from malnutrition, 700 million live in extreme poverty and 2.4 billion are without clean drinking water and sanitation. These problems can be tackled effectively today, helping many more people more dramatically than “climate aid” could.<br /><br />Despite its length, and for all of its heat and bluster, the election campaign left many unanswered questions and understandable concerns about the president-elect’s positions on climate change, aid and development.<br /><br />But, surprisingly, there is now an opportunity. To seize it, the Trump administration needs to go beyond just dumping the ineffective Paris agreement, to an innovation-based green energy approach that will harness U.S. ingenuity. Far from being a disaster, such a policy could mean a real solution to climate change and help the world’s worst-off more effectively.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-climate-plan-might-not-be-so-bad-after-all/2016/11/21/f8c37aa8-acef-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>U.S. will fall short of ethanol, biofuels targets under Renewable Fuel Standard</b><br /><br />The federal Renewable Fuel Standard will fall far short of the goals laid out by Congress, government watchdogs said Monday, dealing another blow to the embattled program and giving more ammunition to critics who say it must be ended immediately.<br /><br />Government Accountability Office reports say the Renewable Fuel Standard, enacted by lawmakers in 2007, has been crippled by higher-than-expected costs of producing ethanol and other biofuels and by the boom in U.S. oil and gas production, which has made fossil fuels far more competitive in the marketplace.<br /><br />The program, which requires increasing amounts of ethanol and other biofuels to be blended into the nation’s gas supply each year, also will fail to deliver the kinds of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions envisioned a decade ago, the GAO said.<br /><br />Taken together, the two conclusions raise doubts about the future of the Renewable Fuel Standard and support critics’ contention that the program is forcing the use of fuels that are too expensive and incompatible with many of today’s vehicles and infrastructure.<br /><br />“Given that current advanced biofuel production is far below Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) targets and those targets are increasing every year, it does not appear possible to meet statutory target volumes for advanced biofuels in the RFS under current market and regulatory conditions,” the GAO report reads in part. “Current production of cellulosic biofuels is far below the statutory volumes and, according to experts, there is limited potential for expanded production to meet future higher targets, in part because production costs are currently too high.”<br /><br />Last week, the agency set a 2017 target of at least 19.28 billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels to be blended into the nation’s gas supply. That is an increase over this year’s target of 18.11 billion gallons but is far below the target of 24 billion gallons set out in 2007 legislation that established the program.<br /><br />One reason for the gap, the GAO report said, is a lack of incentives for more biofuels production or upgrades in infrastructure because of the relatively low cost of fossil fuels in the market.<br /><br />Moving forward, the GAO says, the Renewable Fuel Standard faces a bleak future. Investments into ethanol and biofuels, the watchdog agency said, look to be drying up in the energy marketplace, which has been transformed by the boom of domestic oil and gas drilling over the past decade.<br /><br />That uptick in fossil fuel production seems to have crushed incentives to invest in biofuels and made once-promising ethanol much less appealing.<br /><br />“The shortfall of advanced biofuels is the result of high production costs, and the investments in further research and development required to make these fuels more cost-competitive with petroleum-based fuels even in the longer run are unlikely in the current investment climate,” the GAO said.<br /><br />In response to the GAO studies, the EPA conceded that the original congressional timetable now is essentially irrelevant. The agency also cited the relatively low cost of fossil fuels, the cost of new biofuels technology needed to hit the targets and other factors.<br /><br />“The EPA generally agrees with factors in the draft report identified as affecting the speed and volume of true advanced biofuel production, and which will make achieving future significant increases challenging,” the agency said in written comments.<br /><br />The program is slated to run through 2022, with congressionally set blend targets increasing each year. After that, the EPA and other federal agencies will be responsible for setting targets, assuming the program continues in its current form.<br /><br />But that is far from a certainty, particularly with President-elect Donald Trump having said he plans to re-examine all energy and environmental programs at the federal level. He has not specifically said whether he will seek to phase out or eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard.<br /><br />Opponents of the fuel standard say that even though the Environmental Protection Agency has backed off the congressionally mandated levels repeatedly, it is still pushing ethanol and other biofuels blending requirements that are unrealistic and potentially harmful.<br /><br />“EPA unfortunately finalized a RFS volume requirement that looks to force more biofuel in the fuel supply than consumers want or infrastructure can handle,” Chet Thompson, president of the American Fuel &amp; Petrochemical Manufacturers, said in a statement last week. “Refiners should not have the responsibility to force consumers to use products they either don’t want or that are incompatible with their cars, boats, and motor equipment.”<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/28/us-will-fall-short-ethanol-biofuels-targets-gao/">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-64804248446176176622016-12-01T01:46:00.000+13:002016-12-01T01:46:00.144+13:00<br /><br /><b>Brainless Greenies again</b><br /><br /><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyWr__5WEAA4TgW.jpg" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Pope warns Trump: Do not back away from UN climate pact – Pope declares ‘crisis of climatic change’</b><br /><br /><i>Both Mr Trump and I were brought up as Presbyterians so I can guess how much notice Mr Trump will take of the Pope</i><br /><br />Pope Francis has issued a climate change challenge directly to President Elect Trump. The Pope, in thinly veiled speech, urged Trump not to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations Paris agreement reached in 2015. The UN treaty has been said by critics to be “history’s most expensive treaty’,” with a “cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually.”<br /><br />Pope Francis warned of the “crisis of climate change.” &nbsp;“The ‘distraction’ or delay in implementing global agreements on the environment shows that politics has become submissive to a technology and economy which seek profit above all else,” Francis said, in what Reuters described as “a message that looked to be squarely aimed at” Trump.<br /><br />Trump pledged to pull the U.S. out of the UN Paris climate agreement and defund and withdraw from the UN climate process. <br /><br />Speaking to a group of scientists, including physicist Stephen Hawking, the pope said in his speech that scientists should “work free of political, economic or ideological interests, to develop a cultural model which can face the crisis of climatic change and its social consequences”. The Pope has previously urged Catholics to pray for a UN climate agreement.<br /><br />Pope Francis also called for “an ecological conversion capable of supporting and promoting sustainable development.” In 2015, the Pope issued an encyclical on climate and the environment titled “Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home.”<br /><br /><a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/29/pope-warns-trump-do-not-back-away-from-un-climate-pact-pope-declares-crisis-of-climatic-change/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>MRCTV’s New Documentary Shows Casualties of the Left’s ‘War on Coal’</b><br /><br />MRCTV’s new documentary, Collateral Damage: Forgotten Casualties of the Left’s War on Coal, addresses the struggles West Virginia coal miners and their families are facing largely due to regulations implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).<br /><br />Between September 2014 and May 2016, the U.S. lost about 191,000 jobs in the mining industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.<br /><br />According to data presented in the documentary, coal production in West Virginia alone has declined by 28 percent, and more than 9,000 coal-mining jobs have been lost as a result of government regulations.<br /><br />“You don’t come into an industry that makes up the support system for so many thousands of people and bankrupt it when it’s already struggling with the [economic] downturn,” executive producer Brittany Hughes said at the documentary’s premiere, which was held at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. D.C. Wednesday.<br /><br />“This is not just an attack on coal. Coal is the first one. It’s the first one. But this is an attack on fossil fuels and this country. At least with the technology we have right now, we can’t run off of windmills and solar panels unless everybody just wants to cover the entire country in them, and even then I’m not sure that it would be effective enough,” Hughes added.<br /><br />In 2015, an MRCTV camera crew went to the southern counties of West Virginia to expose and document the devastating impact EPA regulations were having on coal mining families and their communities.<br /><br />Jeremy Abraham, a West Virginia coal miner who was laid off from his job after months of worrying whether EPA regulations would impact the mine where he was employed, told the MRCTV crew that because of the severe economic struggles facing his family, he was forced to sell his house and now has to decide whether or not to relocate his family.<br /><br />I’ve already sold my house. I’m probably going to have to move my family. I mean I’ve got two young babies at home“I’ve already sold my house. I’m probably going to have to move my family. I mean I’ve got two young babies at home. I’ve got a boy that turned three in August and a little girl that just turned 20 months old,” Abraham said. “And I really don’t want to pack them up and move them away from their grandparents.”<br /><br />But “our community is dying, everything around us is dying. There’s no jobs, there’s no future for them,” he added.<br /><br />&nbsp;In his August 2015 response to the adoption of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, said: “This latest iteration of the EPA’s regulatory assault against coal-fired power generation is being presented as addressing the concerns of industry, but nothing could be further from the truth.<br /><br />“Yes, the final regulation tacks on a couple of years to the compliance timeline, but all this accomplishes is to perpetuate uncertainty and provide more time for the rule to do more damage – irreversible damage – to the nation’s industry and electric grid,” Raney said.<br /><br />However, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy defended the plan, stating that “by 2030, the Clean Power Plan will reduce carbon emissions by 32 percent below 2005 levels. Because carbon pollution comes packaged with other dangerous pollutants, our plan protects public health, preventing thousands of premature deaths, asthma attacks, and missed work and school days.<br /><br />“Our plan will grow and strengthen our economy by sending longer term market signals that will drive innovation and investment. It will keep energy affordable and reliable. It will steer us towards where the world is going, not looking back at where it's been,” McCarthy said.<br /><br />But the documentary shows West Virginia’ coal-mining towns slowly drying up, their businesses unable to keep their doors open because of the economic downturn forced upon them by the EPA regulations.<br /><br />Families are struggling to put food on the table because of job loss, and many residents are contemplating whether or not to leave the places they grew up in in search of work.<br /><br />During the Wednesday premiere, Hughes said that state officials had invited federal regulators and lawmakers to visit the areas hit hardest by the government regulations, but received no response.<br /><br />“One of the things we heard most often was that they had invited federal regulators and federal lawmakers to come and see, and that at the time they had not gotten any takers,” Hughes said. “We were the only ones who came down and tried to tell their story in any way possible.<br /><br />One thing that we heard over and over and over again was that people just felt forgotten“One thing that we heard over and over and over again was that people just felt forgotten. People felt like nobody was listening, and that this isn’t just a little hiccup like, ‘Well, I can’t go buy the car that I want next year’. This is ‘I’m losing my home, and my neighbor’s losing their home and the people down the street are losing their homes'," she said.<br /><br />Although the coal mining community in West Virginia is accustomed to the ups and downs of the coal industry, Hughes continued, the latest government regulations won’t allow them to recover from hard times.<br /><br />“Their problem is not so much that coal got hit, because they’ve been through that before. I mean these are people that have weathered some pretty rough stuff in that state’s history. They’re sick and tired of being kicked when they’re down.<br /><br />“And I think that that would be my response to somebody that says, ‘Well, coal was already gonna have a tough time.’ Alright, [but] if you’ve got a person that’s struggling to pay their bills, do you go and take the little bit of money that they do have?”<br /><br />Hughes said that by filming a documentary that puts a face on the struggling coal mining communities, viewers and federal lawmakers will be challenged to consider their role and take action to help revitalize the affected communities.<br /><br />“One thing the Left is very, very good at is humanizing their policy issues. Those of us on the Right, we might have the best data and the best science and the best information and the best facts, but if we don’t put a face on it they’re going to win on that every time.<br /><br />“And so we feel like this really adds a human face to it and can help start to drive that debate,” she said.<br /><br />The Media Research Center has joined with several organizations, including Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cornwall Alliance, Energy &amp; Environment Legal Institute, and The Heartland Institute, to give viewers of the documentary a look at the consequences of the Left’s environmental agenda and to expose the mainstream media’s refusal to cover it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/amy-furr/mrctvs-new-documentary-shows-casualties-lefts-war-coal">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>The facts about wind power are more awkward than the Green/Left will admit</b><br /><br />Christopher Booker<br /><br />I must apologise for having last week mistakenly reported that, despite the drive of the US in the Obama years to build ever more heavily subsidised wind and solar farms, the entire contribution of wind and solar to US electricity consumption is still only “less than 14 percent”.<br /><br />Foolishly, I cited that figure only after a quick internet trawl. where it is quoted on various websites, including Wikipedia. Only when I subsequently referred to a more reliable source did I find that the figure was in fact absurdly exaggerated. All the US was actually getting last year for all the billions of dollars it has spent on wind and solar farms was just 5.4 percent of its electricity. Most of the rest of course came from those CO2-emitting, “planet-destroying” fossil fuels that Obama was so keen to see disappear.<br /><br />Siemens wind farm factory 'great for Britain'Play! 00:52<br />So how does this compare with the position here in England, where we are continually told that wind and solar are now providing ever more of our own power? The official headline figures do not separate England, where most of us live, from the rest of the UK. But thanks to some very clever detective work by Paul Homewood on his Not A Lot Of People Know That blog, we can see that the English figures are in fact strikingly similar to those for the US. The contribution of English onshore wind and solar farms to electricity used in England amounted last year to just 5.3 percent.<br /><br />That intermittently generated by all the thousands of wind turbines spread across the English countryside was just 2.4 percent: rather less than that fed into the grid by a single medium-size gas-fired power station like that recently opened at Carrington outside Manchester – which, thanks to the “carbon tax” and the Climate Change Act, could be the last we ever see built. There’s another very uncomfortable fact you will never see quoted on Wikipedia.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/the-facts-about-wind-power-are-more-awkward-than-obama-would-adm/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Australia: Ethanol mandates costing motorists $85m</b><br /><br /><i>Why do Greenies want ethanol in motor fuel? &nbsp;It just combusts to give off small amounts of CO2 the way other fuels do. &nbsp;It makes no sense</i><br />&nbsp;<br />MOTORISTS in NSW are spending up to $85 million more on petrol due to the state government’s push to force service stations to sell ethanol-laced fuel, according to the competition watchdog.<br /><br />In its latest petrol market report, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission says the NSW Government’s ethanol mandate has led to less choice and higher costs for Sydney motorists.<br /><br />Introduced in 2007, the ethanol mandate requires service stations to sell at least 6 per cent ethanol as a proportion of their sales. E10 fuel is a mixture of 10 per cent ethanol and 90 per cent petrol.<br /><br />Earlier this year, the Baird government ramped up its ethanol push by introducing harsh new penalties of more than $500,000 for service stations that do not stock E10 fuel. Manildra Group, the monopoly provider of ethanol fuel in NSW, is a major donor to state and federal branches of the Liberals, Nationals and Labor.<br /><br />Former NSW Upper House whip Peter Phelps, who quit in March out of protest against the ethanol fuel laws, told the ABC earlier this year that it was “literally the worst piece of legislation NSW has introduced”.<br /><br />According to the ACCC, the reduced availability of regular unleaded petrol (RULP) has led to higher sales of premium unleaded petrol (PULP) and E10. In 2014-15, PULP made up 54 per cent of total petrol sales while E10 made up 36 per cent. Nationwide excluding NSW, PULP sales were 23 per cent and E10 just 4 per cent.<br /><br />The ACCC calculates that as a result of the ethanol mandate, Sydney motorists have spent between $75-$85 million extra on PULP, which averaged 11.5 cents per litre more expensive for 95 octane and 18.5 cents per litre for 98 octane than RULP in 2015-16.<br /><br />“While the use of E10 may be better for the environment, the ethanol mandate has reduced consumer choice and cost Sydney motorists up to $85 million,” said ACCC chairman Rod Sims. “It has also boosted Sydney retailer’s profits due to the higher margins on premium fuel.”<br /><br />Mark McKenzie, chief executive of the petrol retailer peak body ACAPMA, said government interference in motorists’ choice of fuel was unwanted and created “perverse economic effects”.<br /><br />“Simply put, people are making a choice as to what product they put in their car and really are thumbing their nose at the government,” he said. “We’re talking about a mandate that’s been around for seven years. People have tried E10 and have fled from it.<br /><br />“The issue here is the arrogance of the Baird government. They think they can make policy to suit themselves and their mates, when there is a broader community they’re supposed to be serving.<br /><br />“Our view is the choice of fuel is that of the motorist and the government has no place interfering in a core product.”<br /><br />NRMA spokesman Peter Khoury said while it was true people were buying more premium fuel, there had been a lot of “misinformation” about E10 and it was “demonstrably not true” that it was bad for engines.<br /><br />“The majors are advertising premium fuels quite heavily. People can buy regular fuel or E10 but they’re buying 98 octane and paying upwards of 30 cents per litre more for no real benefit,” he said.<br /><br />“About three-quarters of the NSW fleet can run on E10. The remaining that can’t are either cars built before 1986 or they are high-performance vehicles that are mostly imported. The manufacturer will specify if a vehicle must run on premium fuel.”<br /><br />Mr Khoury also disagreed with the ACCC’s finding that regular fuel was harder to find. “There is plenty of regular out there,” he said. “When we quote petrol prices we’re talking regular, not E10. People are buying it all over the place.”<br /><br />Queensland is set to become the second state to introduce an ethanol mandate from January. Queensland Biofuels Minister Mark Bailey told The Australian many NSW motorists “wrongly assumed” their car could not use E10 because the NSW government did not roll out a consumer education campaign.<br /><br />“Our ethanol mandate from January is set at a level that will ensure fuel retailers continue to offer a broad range of fuel grades,” Mr Bailey said.<br /><br />NSW Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation Victor Dominello said the ethanol mandate had been a bipartisan policy since 2007.<br /><br />“The government made changes to the legislation earlier in the year that will boost competition in the marketplace and provide consumers with greater choice,” Mr Dominello said.<br /><br />“The reforms ensure the mandate is focused on the bigger petrol station operators while providing appropriate exemptions for smaller operators.<br /><br />“Consumers are encouraged to use the government’s FuelCheck website which empowers them to find the cheapest fuel by publishing petrol prices in real-time for every service station across NSW.”<br /><br /><a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/costs/nsw-nanny-state-costing-motorists-85m/news-story/2eea09530953f7494d01fa6e23530e70">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-78663631320673037442016-11-30T01:27:00.001+13:002016-11-30T01:29:28.527+13:00<br /><br /><b>Another shriek about bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef</b><br /><br /><i>This is just a repetition of a story that has been going on for a year or more. &nbsp;Previous claims of this nature have been shown to be highly exaggereated so a repetition of the claims from the same people as before has no credibility. <br /><br />I was born and bred in an area close to the reef and have been hearing cries of alarm about the reef for 50 years. &nbsp;But somehow the reef still seems to be there. &nbsp;It has always had episodes of retreat but coral is highly resilient and bounces back quite rapidly.<br /><br />One thing we can be sure of is that the problems were not caused by anthropogenic global warming. &nbsp;Why? &nbsp;Because that theory says that warming is caused by increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. &nbsp;But <a href="http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/">the latest readings</a> show NO increase in CO2 during 2015 and 2016<br /><br />There WAS warming up until recently but that was caused by the El Nino weather cycle, not CO2. Once again we had the chronic Warmist problem that CO2 levels and temperatures do not correlate. &nbsp;Below is a picture of the El Nino effect on global temperatures. &nbsp;You see it peaked late last year and has been falling ever since. &nbsp;So if warmth was the cause of the reef problems, the reef should soon start to recover<br /><br /><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Dm7665p.jpg" /> <br /></i><br /><br />Two-thirds of the corals in the northern part of the Great Barrier Reef have died in the reef’s worst-ever bleaching event, according to our latest underwater surveys.<br /><br />On some reefs in the north, nearly all the corals have died. However the impact of bleaching eases as we move south, and reefs in the central and southern regions (around Cairns and Townsville and southwards) were much less affected, and are now recovering.<br /><br />In 2015 and 2016, the hottest years on record, we have witnessed at first hand the threat posed by human-caused climate change to the world’s coral reefs.<br /><br />Heat stress from record high summer temperatures damages the microscopic algae (zooxanthellae) that live in the tissues of corals, turning them white.<br /><br />After they bleach, these stressed corals either slowly regain their zooxanthellae and colour as temperatures cool off, or else they die.<br /><br />The Great Barrier Reef bleached severely for the first time in 1998, then in 2002, and now again in 2016. This year’s event was more extreme than the two previous mass bleachings.<br />Surveying the damage<br /><br />We undertook extensive underwater surveys at the peak of bleaching in March and April, and again at the same sites in October and November. In the northern third of the Great Barrier Reef, we recorded an average (median) loss of 67% of coral cover on a large sample of 60 reefs.<br /><br />The dieback of corals due to bleaching in just 8-9 months is the largest loss ever recorded for the Great Barrier Reef.<br /><br />To put these losses in context, over the 27 years from 1985 to 2012, scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science measured the gradual loss of 51% of corals on the central and southern regions of the Great Barrier Reef.<br /><br />They reported no change over this extended period in the amount of corals in the remote, northern region. Unfortunately, most of the losses in 2016 have occurred in this northern, most pristine part of the Great Barrier Reef.<br /><br />The bleaching, and subsequent loss of corals, is very patchy. Our map shows clearly that coral death varies enormously from north to south along the 2,300km length of the Reef.<br /><br />The southern third of the Reef did not experience severe heat stress in February and March. Consequently, only minor bleaching occurred, and we found no significant mortality in the south since then.<br /><br />In the central section of the Reef, we measured widespread but moderate bleaching, which was comparably severe to the 1998 and 2002 events. On average, only 6% of coral cover was lost in the central region in 2016.<br /><br />The remaining corals have now regained their vibrant colour. Many central reefs are in good condition, and they continue to recover from Severe Tropical Cyclones Hamish (in 2009) and Yasi (2011).<br /><br />In the eastern Torres Strait and outermost ribbon reefs in the northernmost part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, we found a large swathe of reefs that escaped the most severe bleaching and mortality, compared to elsewhere in the north. Nonetheless, 26% of the shallow-water corals died.<br /><br />We suspect that these reefs were partially protected from heat stress by strong currents and upwelling of cooler water across the edge of the continental shelf that slopes steeply into the Coral Sea.<br /><br />For visitors, these surveys show there are still many reefs throughout the Marine Park that have abundant living coral, particularly in popular tourism locations in the central and southern regions, such as the Whitsundays and Cairns.<br /><br />Darkspots<br /><br />The northern third of the Great Barrier Reef, extending 700km from Port Douglas to Papua New Guinea, experienced the most severe bleaching and subsequent loss of corals.<br /><br />On 25% of the worst affected reefs (the top quartile), losses of corals ranged from 83-99%. When mortality is this high, it affects even tougher species that normally survive bleaching.<br /><br />However, even in this region, there are some silver linings. Bleaching and mortality decline with depth, and some sites and reefs had much better than average survival. A few corals are still bleached or mottled, particularly in the north, but the vast majority of survivors have regained their colour.<br /><br />What will happen next?<br /><br />The reef science and management community will continue to gather data on the bleaching event as it slowly unfolds. The initial stage focused on mapping the footprint of the event, and now we are analysing how many bleached corals died or recovered over the past 8-9 months.<br /><br />Over the coming months and for the next year or two we expect to see longer-term impacts on northern corals, including higher levels of disease, slower growth rates and lower rates of reproduction. The process of recovery in the north – the replacement of dead corals by new ones – will be slow, at least 10-15 years, as long as local conditions such as water quality remain conducive to recovery.<br /><br />As global temperatures continue to climb, time will tell how much recovery in the north is possible before a fourth mass bleaching event occurs.<br /><br /><a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-coral-has-died-in-the-great-barrier-reefs-worst-bleaching-event-69494">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Swiss reject plan to speed up exit from nuclear energy</b><br /><br />Swiss voters have rejected a plan to force their government to accelerate the country’s exit from nuclear energy.<br /><br />A majority of cantons voted against the plan in Sunday’s referendum. Under Switzerland’s direct democracy system, proposals need a majority of both the states and overall votes to pass.<br /><br />The plan promoted by the Green Party would have meant closing three of Switzerland’s five nuclear plants next year, with the last shutting in 2029. A projection for SRF public television showed the initiative failing by 55 percent to 45.<br /><br />After the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, the Swiss government adopted a gradualist approach toward transitioning the country to renewable energy by 2050.<br /><br />The five Swiss nuclear power plants now generate 40 percent of the country’s electricity.<br /><br />A similar movement is underway in neighboring Germany, where officials are stepping up transition to renewables like solar energy in time to be done with nuclear energy by 2022, a deadline also set after the Japanese tsunami.<br /><br />As part of an energy plan that runs through 2050, the Swiss government has already agreed not to replace its existing nuclear plants, which can operate as long as they’re deemed safe. The plants are to be closed progressively as their life spans expire, and the government says it needs time to switch to other sources such as wind, solar, and biomass energy.<br /><br />Switzerland regularly holds referendums as part of its particular form of direct democracy, which allows voters in the country of about 8.2 million to set policy on major issues — at times causing hassles for officials to carry out the public’s will.<br /><br />The two chambers of the Swiss legislature and the executive Federal Council have variously argued that the earlier shutdown of the nuclear energy program would have forced Switzerland to import more electricity, such as from carbon-spewing coal-fired plants in Germany.<br /><br />Plus, early shutdowns could make the government — and thus taxpayers — liable to pay penalties to the nuclear plant operators.<br /><br />‘‘The initiative will compromise the security of our energy supply,’’ Federal Councilor Didier Burkhalter warned in a government video.<br /><br />But Ilias Panchard, secretary general of a group whose French name translates as ‘‘Get Out of Nuclear,’’ said Switzerland’s nuclear power complex is dangerous, aging, and beset by problems — with two of the five Swiss plants not operating at the moment for safety or technical reasons.<br /><br />His group insisted that now is the time to set a fixed timetable, before it’s too late to move to a proper replacement.<br /><br />‘‘If we just wait until an accident or a problem with the plants, then we do not have the time, the energy to replace it. So the idea of the initiative, the referendum, is to say: In 2029 we will have no more nuclear energy in Switzerland,’’ he said in an interview in Geneva.<br /><br />The initiative would have limited the life span of nuclear plants to 45 years, and force the closure next year of three of the plants, Beznau 1 — which Panchard called the world’s oldest operating nuclear plant, built in 1969 — as well as Beznau 2 and Muhleberg.<br /><br />‘‘Concretely, that means that in 2017, about one-third of the electricity generated by nuclear energy will be lacking. That amounts to the average annual electricity consumption of close to half of Swiss households,’’ Burkhalter said, adding that renewables won’t be able to make up the difference right away.<br /><br />Two other plants would shut over the next 13 years: Goesgen would close in 2024 and Leibstadt in 2029.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2016/11/27/swiss-reject-plan-speed-exit-from-nuclear-energy/paGTIDZZMuvj41tKsqxGSM/story.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Solar, wind industries hope years courting Republicans pays off under Trump</b><br /><br />U.S. wind and solar companies for the first time gave more money to Republicans than Democrats during the 2016 election cycle, according to federal campaign disclosures, part of a years-long effort to expand renewable energy’s appeal beyond liberal environmentalists.<br /><br />The industry is now hoping its strategy of reaching across the political divide will pay off in the form of Congressional support as Republican Donald Trump, a climate change skeptic who has expressed doubts about the role of clean energy, takes the White House in January.<br /><br />"We're not starting from ground zero," said Isaac Brown, a principal at 38 North Solutions, which lobbies on behalf of clean energy clients.<br /><br />The U.S. wind and solar industries employ over 300,000 people, making clean energy an important political constituency that is about five times bigger than the coal sector for jobs, thanks to years of rapid growth fueled by government incentives and declines in the cost of their technologies.<br /><br />They have also fought to win over a new breed of backer: conservatives skeptical of climate change but interested in supporting homegrown energy alternatives that increase national security, boost competition, and create well-paying blue collar jobs.<br /><br />But Trump’s upset victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 presidential election has cast doubt on the future of a federal tax break for renewable energy seen critical to the industry’s continued growth.<br /><br />Trump has never specifically called for those credits to end, but has expressed skepticism about the role of solar and wind in the U.S. energy landscape, calling both "so expensive" and blaming wind turbines for killing birds and ruining picturesque landscapes.<br /><br />During his campaign, Trump also called global warming a hoax and promised to quit a global accord to cut greenhouse gas emissions, though he has since softened his stance and said he is keeping an "open mind" about the deal.<br /><br />The renewable energy industry got a boost last year when Congress approved a five-year extension of tax credits for new power projects fueled by solar panels and wind turbines, and the industry's main concern in Washington is to ensure they are not withdrawn in Trump's first term, or allowed to expire should he win a second.<br /><br />A Trump official did not respond to a request for comment about how he will approach renewables as president. But one of Trump's potential picks for Energy Secretary, Oklahoma oil and gas drilling mogul Harold Hamm, has been a vocal opponent of subsidies for renewable energy.<br /><br />Renewable stocks took a beating immediately after Trump’s election but have since mostly recovered.<br /><br />During the 2016 cycle, the wind and solar industry's political action committees contributed more than $225,000 to Republican candidates for office, compared with $185,000 for Democrats. The numbers are not large by the standards of political donations but they mark the first time the industry has tilted its contributions toward Republicans, according to federal records.<br /><br />In 2012, Democrats got about two-thirds of the industry’s contributions.<br /><br />Though Democrats have historically been viewed as the strongest supporters of renewable energy, utility-scale wind farms and solar installations are found throughout the nation - including in Republican-leaning states like Arizona, North Carolina, Oklahoma and North Dakota - and enjoy bipartisan support among Americans.<br /><br />A Pew Research Center poll from October found 83 percent of conservative Republicans favor more solar installations, and 75 percent favor more wind farms. Those figures were 97 percent and 93 percent for liberal Democrats.<br /><br />The expansion of solar beyond liberal strongholds like California and the Northeast has been critical to garnering Republican support over the last few years. The wind industry has been established in red states for far longer than solar and has a longer track record of support from Republican lawmakers in those states.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-renewables-idUSKBN13N0X7">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>The Growth Of Global Warming Nonsense: Surely We've Reached Peak Madness</b><br /><br />Time magazine said Donald Trump's election has climate change negotiators down, but not out, and has "cast a long shadow over progress made at" the United Nations climate conference held earlier this month in Morocco. Seems the alarmist community is still stuck in the denial phase of the five stages of grief.<br /><br />The negotiators' denial is not their attempt to pretend that Trump didn't win, a road that some on the left have taken. It is more deeply rooted in the fact that their predictions of disaster have not materialized.<br /><br />They have tried for decades to frighten everyone on the planet and all this time later, few are scared because they see the gaping holes in the narrative, the miserably failed forecasts, the glaring lack of evidence and the garbage dump of lies.<br /><br />Yet the activists continue to behave and screech as if the world is on the brink and there are only days left to save it.<br /><br />Average Westerners simply trying to live their lives honestly and work hard for their families aren't moved by the braying. They see insane proposals, such as the one from Oxford University that suggests foods should be priced according to their climate impacts, and shake their heads as if their loony uncle living in the room over the garage is talking to Moses again.<br /><br />But it's more than that, isn't it? It seems we are watching the psychological breakdown of a segment of the Western population that is desperately trying control other people and greedily snatch the world's economic levers, and employing harsh scare tactics in its effort to achieve these goals.<br /><br />Let's not even pretend that this group cares about the environment. The international Paris agreement that President Obama unilaterally signed on to without input from Congress, the agreement that the alarmist community has declared to be absolutely vital to putting off climate change, would do little to stop projected warming into the next century.<br /><br />Researcher Bjorn Lomborg, who believes that man's carbon dioxide emissions are having some impact on the planet, says that if every nation fulfilled its promise to cut emissions by 2030, "the total temperature reduction will be 0.048" degrees Celsius by 2100.<br /><br />In other words, Paris won't change a thing.<br /><br />Despite the fact that the Paris accord will produce no climate benefit, the political left, which includes the agenda-driven media, continues its deranged behavior over the election of Trump because he has indicated that he will pull the U.S. from Obama's unethical deal.<br /><br />This lunacy, consciously chosen, is possibly best illustrated by the Democratic National Committee staffer who whined that Clinton's loss means that he's "going to die from climate change," and marched out of a meeting in which the Democrats were trying to rally from their election defeat.<br /><br />The unfortunate dupe, who must be a recent campus emission, as he acted like one of higher education's delicate snowflakes, is the product of the hysteria his own party has whipped up.<br /><br />Global warming raving has also affected a group of eight kids from Washington, who are suing their state over climate change. The Associated Press says they are "part of a nationwide effort by young people to try to force action on global warming."<br /><br />They've been incited, no doubt, by the Democrats' unrelenting fanaticism about the subject.<br /><br />But isn't the Democratic Party the party of science? That's the label its members have awarded it. Aren't the kids and the Democratic staffer simply reacting to the party's rational position on global warming? Journalist John Tierney probably wouldn't agree.<br /><br />"The only successful war on science is the one waged by the Left," Tierney, a New York Times reporter, wrote in the Autumn 2016 City Journal.<br /><br />He acknowledges that "there's plenty of ignorance all around," but also reports that "some surveys show that Republicans, particularly libertarians, are more scientifically literate than Democrats."<br /><br />Remember this the next time outgoing (thankfully) Secretary of State John Kerry says anything about global warming. He might be one of the many members of his party who doesn't know that astrology isn't a science and that it takes a year for Earth to revolve around the sun.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-growth-of-global-warming-nonsense-surely-weve-reached-peak-madness/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Army Corps to close Dakota pipeline protesters’ camp</b><br /><br />The Army Corps of Engineers plans to close off a swath of North Dakota land that for months has housed a campsite for anti-pipeline protesters.<br /><br />The Army Corps sent a letter to the chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe Friday that said all lands north of the Cannonball River will be closed on Dec. 5, the Associated Press reported.<br /><br />“To be clear, this means that no member of the general public, to include Dakota Access pipeline protesters, can be on these Corps lands,” the letter from Col. John Henderson reads.<br /><br />Tribe Chairman Dave Archambault told the AP that the land to be closed includes the Oceti Sakowin camp on Army Corps land where many protesters have set up.<br /><br />Another camp, Sacred Stone, sits on the opposite of the river and will not be affected by the Army Corps decision.<br /><br />Henderson said that the decision “is necessary to protect the general public from the violent confrontations between protestors and law enforcement officials that have occurred in this area, and to prevent death, illness, or serious injury to inhabitants of encampments due to the harsh North Dakota winter conditions."<br /><br />He said that necessary services, including emergency and medical resources, can not be properly provided to protesters there.<br /><br />“I do not take this action lightly, but have decided that it is required due to the concern for public safety and the fact that much of this land is leased to private persons for grazing and/or haying purposes as part of the Corps' land management practices,” he wrote.<br /><br />The letter goes on to say that a “free speech zone” will be set up on the south side of the Cannonball River for peaceful protests.<br /><br />“In these areas, jurisdiction for police, fire, and medical response is better defined making it a more sustainable area for visitors to endure the harsh North Dakota winter.”<br /><br />The Army Corps warned that anyone on the lands north of the river after Dec. 5 will be considered trespassing and could face prosecution. They added that anyone who stays there does so at their own risk and liability.<br /><br />The Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes, joined by a flood of other tribe members and supporters, are fighting the final stretch of the 1,200-mile pipeline, that they say could threaten drinking water and cultural sites. Tensions between protesters and police have escalated in recent weeks, with law enforcement using water cannons and allegedly concussion grenades.<br /><br /><a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/307543-army-corps-to-close-dakota-pipeline-protesters-camp">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Britain’s Stupid Climate Policy Needs the Donald Trump Treatment</b><br /><br />by James Delingpole<br /><br />Britain has now officially ratified the COP21 Paris climate agreement.<br /><br />The good news is that this will make no difference to anyone or anything because the agreement is toothless and non-binding. The bad news – as you can tell from some of the ministerial comments – is that it serves to remind us that Britain’s climate and energy policy is still in thrall to the environmentalist lunacy which wiser heads like Donald Trump are trying to write out of history.<br /><br />Wiser heads? Donald Trump?? Yes, I can almost hear the sneering and the jeering from the usual suspects.<br /><br />But even if you disagree with Trump’s environmental and energy policy – which I don’t – it remains an unarguable fact that the world’s most powerful nation is heading in a very clear direction for at least the next four years: pro-fossil-fuels, anti-renewables. This is going to have a massive, largely positive impact on the U.S. economy because by bringing down the cost of energy, it will give consumers more disposable income and enable businesses – especially in energy-intensive heavy industry – to increase their profit margins or cut costs to the benefit of their bottom line.<br /><br />At this point, America’s global economic competitors have one of two options: either they wake up and smell the coffee and move in America’s direction; or they bury their heads in the sand, pretend we’re still living in the status quo ante and sit, helpless, while America’s new higher-carbon economy steals half of their business.<br /><br />Judging by the comments of the Minister for Climate Change and Industry – about as fatuous a title as being Minister for Veganism and Meat – Britain has already made up her mind:<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; “The UK is ratifying the historic Paris Agreement so that we can help to accelerate global action on climate change and deliver on our commitments to create a safer, more prosperous future for us all,” Nick Hurd, Minister of State for Climate Change and Industry, said.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; “We are going to use this positive momentum to grow the UK low-carbon sector, which is already worth over 46 billion pounds, as we continue to provide secure, affordable and clean energy to our families and businesses,” he said."<br /><br />Nick Hurd, it should be noted, had the best education money can buy at Eton. Clearly, it was utterly wasted if this is the sort of bilge he comes up with.<br /><br />What can government-imposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions (which inevitably lead malinvestment, cronyism, tariffs and subsidies) possibly have to do with prosperity? Or indeed safety?<br /><br />It is weapons-grade bollocks and inspires very little faith that Theresa May, despite her axing of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, has any real grasp of the rapidly changing nature of the climate debate. We got a depressing taste of this when she gave the monstrously expensive, outdated, and generally rubbish Hinkley Point C power station the go-ahead.<br /><br />If the even crazier exercise in green virtue-signalling and crony capitalism the Swansea Bay Tidal Project gets approved, we shall know that the government has lost the plot completely.<br /><br />Perhaps had Hillary Clinton won the presidential election, this would make a sort of sense. Britain would be merely going with the flow of international policy.<br /><br />But Trump won and now Britain faces a stark choice, described here by Rupert Darwall who has been in Marrakech at the COP22 conference.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; "Although Britain is formally leaving the EU, its climate and energy policies look set to remain exactly the same. Indeed, when it comes to climate and energy, Britain is being more Catholic than the Pope.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; The German government has stated its intention to keep burning coal for at least the next two decades; Greg Clark’s business department has just launched a consultation on phasing it out by 2025.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; That is unlikely to play well in Washington, to say the least. Coal is important to Republicans. Over the last two years, Britain imported 16.5 million tonnes of coal from America, worth $1.4 billion.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; Four of the top five coal-producing states voted Republican – including Pennsylvania, which switched from the Democrats. Of the top 10 coal-burning states, seven voted Republican last week, including Vice President-elect Mike Pence’s Indiana and swing state Ohio.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; An iron rule of American politics is that domestic politics trump international considerations. As Henry Kissinger told The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg after the election, Trump’s victory “could enable us to establish coherence between our foreign policy and our domestic situation”.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; And it is very hard to envisage the Trump Administration looking kindly on a potential trade deal with a partner that is in the process of banning imports of American coal – and putting American miners out of work"<br /><br />So far it looks like Britain is hell bent on taking the wrong decision. Business Secretary Greg Clark looks to be clueless and it seems depressingly likely that all the green activists who infested the defunct Department of Energy and Climate Change have simply been dispersed within other ministries, spreading their environmentalist crony capitalist poison.<br /><br />Here is John Constable’s depressing take:<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; "The UK’s new secretary of state for Business, Greg Clark, has just given his first public speech on energy. It suggests, unfortunately, that he is not yet sufficiently confident of his brief to resist the views of his civil servants. Indeed, this speech could easily have been written for Ed Miliband, or Chris Huhne, or Ed Davey, and suggests that the rent-seeking green interests in the electricity sector are re-injecting themselves into the national bloodstream through an interventionist industrial strategy. This will result in overcapitalisation and reductions in productivity"<br /><br />We have scotched the Green Blob but not killed it. A long hard battle lies ahead of us.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/18/britains-stupid-climate-policy-needs-donald-trump-treatment/">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-69088017220413966742016-11-29T01:24:00.001+13:002016-11-29T01:24:48.121+13:00<br /><br /><b>Arctic warming claim: An amusing combination of alarm and uncertainty</b><br /><br /><i>The article below starts out by making a big deal out of the fact that: "Temperatures in the Arctic are currently about 20C above what would be expected". &nbsp;Which is roughly true as far as it goes. &nbsp;But like all Green/Left reporting, the important bits are what is left out. &nbsp;<a href="http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2016/TWTW11-26-16.pdf">SEPP</a> &nbsp;tells us what is left out:<br /><br />"The current warmth in the Artic provides material for alarmists to predict drastic climate change. Many of the stories fail to mention that although the mean Arctic temperatures are as much as 15ºC, about 30ºF, above normal, with some day-time exceptions, the temperatures are still well below freezing. Further, the alarmist stories fail to mention that temperatures in Asia are drastically below normal for weeks --- as much as 60ºF below normal in Siberia. Long before appropriate instrumentation, the Arctic experienced warm periods, as seen in the Greenland ice cores and in warm periods such as the 1920s"<br /><br />And then we come to bathos. After the shrill and unhesitating alarm of the first part of the article, we find out that they are actually very uncertain. &nbsp;They really don't understand what is going on very well at all: &nbsp;"very serious changes are happening, but they are still poorly understood. We need more research to understand them". <br /><br />You couldn't make it up. &nbsp;Utter trash<br /></i><br /><br />Arctic scientists have warned that the increasingly rapid melting of the ice cap risks triggering 19 “tipping points” in the region that could have catastrophic consequences around the globe.<br /><br />The Arctic Resilience Report found that the effects of Arctic warming could be felt as far away as the Indian Ocean, in a stark warning that changes in the region could cause uncontrollable climate change at a global level.<br /><br />Temperatures in the Arctic are currently about 20C above what would be expected for the time of year, which scientists describe as “off the charts”. Sea ice is at the lowest extent ever recorded for the time of year.<br /><br />“The warning signals are getting louder,” said Marcus Carson of the Stockholm Environment Institute and one of the lead authors of the report. “[These developments] also make the potential for triggering [tipping points] and feedback loops much larger.”<br /><br />Climate tipping points occur when a natural system, such as the polar ice cap, undergoes sudden or overwhelming change that has a profound effect on surrounding ecosystems, often irreversible.<br /><br />In the Arctic, the tipping points identified in the new report, published on Friday, include: growth in vegetation on tundra, which replaces reflective snow and ice with darker vegetation, thus absorbing more heat; higher releases of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from the tundra as it warms; shifts in snow distribution that warm the ocean, resulting in altered climate patterns as far away as Asia, where the monsoon could be effected; and the collapse of some key Arctic fisheries, with knock-on effects on ocean ecosystems around the globe.<br /><br />The research, compiled by 11 organisations including the Arctic Council and six universities, comes at a critical time, not only because of the current Arctic temperature rises but in political terms.<br /><br />Aides to the US president-elect, Donald Trump, this week unveiled plans to remove the budget for climate change science currently used by Nasa and other US federal agencies for projects such as examining Arctic changes, and to spend it instead on space exploration.<br /><br />“That would be a huge mistake,” said Carson, noting that much more research needs to be done on polar tipping points before we can understand the true dangers, let alone hope to tackle them. “It would be like ripping out the aeroplane’s cockpit instruments while you are in mid-flight.”<br /><br />He added: “These are very serious problems, very serious changes are happening, but they are still poorly understood. We need more research to understand them. A lot of the major science is done by the US.”<br /><br /><a href="http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/arctic-ice-melt-could-trigger-uncontrollable-climate-change-at-global-level/ar-AAkK1eC">Source</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>'Remarkable year': What's behind the record low sea ice in Antarctica</b><br /><br /><i>Why should sea-ice levels suddenly change from high to low? The galoots below don't know but my guess is increased activity from Antarctica's sub-surface volcanoes. &nbsp;But you are not allowed to mention that. One thing that is not responsible is CO2. &nbsp;<a href="http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/">The latest findings</a> show that CO2 levels were static for 2015 and 2016</i><br /><br />It was in early August this year when Phil Reid, a climatologist with the Bureau of Meteorology, first noticed something odd happening to the ice around Antarctica.<br /><br />An area of ice had started to melt in the eastern Weddell Sea even though the region was still in darkness and air temperatures below freezing.<br /><br />Confirmed later as a rare sighting of the Weddell polynya – as such melts are known – abnormal sea ice activity began showing up in other regions off the southern continent.<br /><br />Having set records for area covered by sea ice just over two years ago, the ice has rapidly retreated since late August to set new marks for record-low coverage for this time of year.<br /><br />"It's been a pretty remarkable year," Dr Reid said, adding sea ice now totalled about 12.8 million square kilometres, or more than 2 million below average for November.<br /><br />The Weddell polynya indicates there were unusually warm waters beneath, but researchers won't know for sure until they can retrieve and analyse data from floats, Dr Reid said.<br /><br />Some extreme weather, which also brought in warmer air from the north, may have helped corral the thinning ice into smaller areas. "That atmospheric pattern exacerbated the regions of lower-than-normal sea ice," he said.<br /><br />Mark Brandon, a polar oceanographer and blogger at the UK's Open University, said the ice was noticeably compacting in three areas – the Ross Sea, the Cosmonauts Sea, and in the Bellingshausen and Weddell seas.<br /><br />Dr Brandon said that the increased mobility of the ice implies there is less of it, so volume has probably dropped too.<br /><br />"We have no long-term wide geographical ranging measurements of sea ice thickness in the Antarctic that are comparable to what we have in the Arctic," he said. "For various technical reasons we don't have [satellite data] – yet – either.<br /><br />"But with the evidence in the Weddell Sea I would be surprised if the volume is constant given the pack is not being compressed against the coast," he said.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/remarkable-year-whats-behind-the-record-low-sea-ice-in-antarctica-20161125-gsxo4p.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Go global warming!</b><br /><br />England will face its coldest November night for almost 25 years as temperatures plummet below freezing this week. People have been told to wrap up warm with overnight temperatures forecast to drop to -8C in southern England by Tuesday. The last time it was this cold was in Yorkshire, on November 22 1993.<br /><br />It will be chilly this evening with temperatures dropping to -6C in the South of England and minus -5C in the West Midlands.<br /><br />A band of cloud over the North of the country and towards Scotland will keep temperatures milder, reaching around 4C.<br /><br />Into Monday and Tuesday it will remain dry with clear skies, but temperatures will drop overnight to -8C.<br /><br />The brisk conditions are only expected to last until Wednesday, with warmer weather forecast later on in the week.<br /><br />Met office meteorologist, Luke Miall said: 'We are set for a couple of cold nights but we won't see sub zero temperatures during the day. It's just a case of wrapping up warm if you go out.<br /><br />Ladbrokes are offering odds of 2/1 that a new record is set for the coldest night of 2016 before next Sunday.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3976326/England-face-coldest-November-25-years-temperatures-plunge-freezing-week.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>No, Donald Trump Hasn’t Suddenly Gone Soft on ‘Global Warming’</b><br /><br /><i>I gave my take on this on <a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/trumps-backdowns-trump-was-so-vague-and.html">Sunday</a></i><br /><br />“Trump now believes that man-made climate change is real” claims a headline in Mother Jones. (Top trolling, guys. Almost worthy of the Master, DJT himself.)<br /><br />“In shift, Donald Trump says humans may be causing global warming,” says PBS.<br /><br />According to The Washington Post, meanwhile:<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; President-elect Donald Trump appears to be softening his tone on whether climate change is real and on his stated plans to scrap the recent multinational agreement to limit carbon emissions.<br /><br />The name for this nonsense is “fake news” – as becomes clear when you read the transcripts of what President-Elect Trump actually said at his meeting with The New York Times:<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; ARTHUR SULZBERGER Jr., publisher of The New York Times: We do hear it.<br /><br />So at this point, Trump is gently introducing the NYT‘s liberals to the concept that not everyone thinks the same way on climate change as they do. Let’s carry on, shall we?<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it. &nbsp;[laughter]<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; SULZBERGER: Not like this.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; TRUMP: "You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind"<br /><br /><br />Trump, it is obvious to anyone with half a brain, is taking the piss. He is telling the NYT‘s liberal assembly “I hear what you say” and then, ever so nicely, indicating that he doesn’t give a toss. The way he repeats that phrase “open mind”. He’s trolling them, basically. (Especially where he tells them he’s an “environmentalist”: classic Trump.)<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.<br /><br />“We’ll let you know.” In other words: “I’ll get back to you.” In other words: “Sorry. Not interested in your business. Got better things to do.”<br /><br /><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/24/no-donald-trump-hasnt-suddenly-gone-soft-global-warming/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Five stages of climate grief</b><br /><br />Ever since the elections, our media, schools, workplaces and houses of worship have presented stories showcasing the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.<br /><br />Liberal-progressive snowflakes are wallowing in denial, anger and depression. They cannot work, attend class or take exams. They need safe “healing” spaces, Play-Doh, comfort critters and counseling. Too many throw tirades equating Donald Trump with Adolph Hitler, while too few are actually moving to Canada, New Zeeland or Jupiter, after solemnly promising they would.<br /><br />Nouveau grief is also characterized by the elimination of bargaining and acceptance – and their replacement by two new stages: intolerance for other views and defiance or even riots. Sadly, it appears these new stages have become a dominant, permanent, shameful feature of liberal policies and politics.<br /><br />The Left has long been intolerant of alternative viewpoints. Refusing to engage or debate, banning or forcibly removing books and posters, threatening and silencing contrarians, disinviting or shouting down conservative speakers, denying tax exempt status to opposing political groups, even criminalizing and prosecuting climate change “deniers” – have all become trademark tactics. Defiance and riots were rare during the Obama years, simply because his government enforced lib-prog ideologies and policies.<br /><br />Liberals view government as their domain, their reason for being, far too important to be left to “poorly educated” rural and small-town voters, blue-collar workers or other “deplorable” elements. Liberals may not care what we do in our bedrooms, but they intend to control everything outside those four walls.<br /><br />They are aghast that over 90% of all US counties and county equivalents voted for Trump. They’re incensed that President Trump and Republicans in Congress, 33 governor’s offices and 69 of 99 state legislatures nationwide will likely review and reform policies, laws and regulations on a host of issues.<br /><br />Above all, they are outraged over what might happen to their “dangerous manmade climate change” mantra. It was supposed to be their ticket to endless extravaganzas at 5-star venues in exotic locales – their trump card for controlling the world’s energy, economy, livelihoods and living standards.<br /><br />That is why they demand that only their “facts” be heard on the “consensus science” supporting policies they say are essential to prevent a “disastrous” 2º C (3.6º F) rise from 1850 levels, when the Little Ice Age ended (and the modern industrial era began). It’s why the Paris climate agreement tells developed nations to keep fossil fuels in the ground, roll back their economies and reduce their living standards – while giving $100 billion per year to poor countries for climate mitigation and reparation.<br /><br />That, in turn, is why developing countries eagerly signed the Paris accord, bringing it into force and effect just before this year’s climate confab in Marrakech. They would not be required to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions. And they – or at least their governing classes – would receive trillions of dollars over the coming decades. Countless thousands were thus in jolly spirits as they flew giant fuel-guzzling, GHG-spewing jetliners into Morocco for the historic event.<br /><br />But then, on the third day, news of the US elections brought misery and mayhem to Marrakech. Event organizers had tolerated credentialed Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow representatives handing out Climate Hustle DVDs and discussing Real World climate science and energy development. But when CFACT erected a Donald Trump cutout and shredded a copy of the Paris accord, they sent armed police to forcibly end the educational event and boot the impudent non-believers out of the hallowed conference.<br /><br />Marrakech may have marked the zenith of the religious-political climate movement. President-Elect Trump has long held that there is likely “some connectivity” between human actions and the climate – but he has also said it is a “hoax” to say humans are now causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. He also says he has an “open mind” on the issue and will be studying it “very closely.”<br /><br />Here are a few important facts and probing questions that he could raise, to get the ball rolling.<br /><br />1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed to detect and assess possible human influences on global climate systems, amid many natural forces. However, it soon began looking only at human influences. Now it claims warming, cooling and weather are driven only by human emissions. How and why did this happen? How can alarmists ignore the powerful natural forces, focus solely on air emissions associated with fossil fuel use – and call it solid, honest, empirical, consensus science?<br /><br />2) Your “manmade climate chaos” thesis – and computer models that support it – implicitly assume that fossil fuel emissions and feedbacks they generate have replaced numerous powerful natural forces that have driven climate cycles and extreme weather events throughout Earth and human history. What caused the ice ages and interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Anasazi and Mayan droughts, and other major climate and weather events – before fossil fuel emissions took over?<br /><br />Where did all those natural forces go? Why are they no longer functioning? Who stole them? When did they stop ruling the climate: in 1850, 1900, 1950 … or perhaps 1990, after the IPCC was established?<br /><br />3) You claim climate and weather patterns are already “unprecedented” and increasingly cataclysmic. But even as plant-fertilizing CO2 levels continue to climb, average global temperatures have risen barely 0.1 degrees the past two decades, amid a major El Niño. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are growing at record rates. Seas are rising at barely seven inches per century. It has now been a record eleven years since a category 3-5 hurricane struck the US mainland; the previous record was nine years, 1860 to 1869. The 2016 US tornado count was the lowest on record. Where are the unprecedented cataclysms?<br /><br />4) Your computer models begin with the assumption or assertion that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will cause rapidly, dangerously rising global temperatures, and more extreme weather events. But if this assumption is wrong, so are your models, projections and scenarios. It’s garbage in / garbage out. And in fact your models have been wrong – dramatically and consistently, year after year. When will you fix them? When will they factor in data and analyses for solar, cosmic ray, oceanic and other natural forces?<br /><br />5) The manmade climate cataclysm community has refused to discuss or debate its data, methodologies, analyses and conclusions with those whom you call “skeptics” or “deniers.” 97% consensus, case closed, you say. What do you fear from open, robust debate? What manipulated data or other tricks are you trying to hide? Why are you afraid to put your cards on the table, lay out your supposed evidence – and duke it out? Do you really think taxpayers should give you one more dime under these circumstances?<br /><br />6) The FDA and other federal agencies require that applications for drugs, medical devices and permits for projects include extensive raw data, lab and project methodologies, and other information. Your modeling and other work is largely paid for with taxpayer money, and used to determine public policies. Why should you be allowed to hide your data and methodologies, treat them as proprietary, refuse to share them with Congress or “realist” scientists, and refuse to engage in a full peer-review process?<br /><br />7) EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme blames everything imaginable on fossil fuels – but totally ignores the huge benefits of using these fuels. Isn’t that misleading, disingenuous, even fraudulent?<br /><br />8) America already produces more ethanol than it can use. Now EPA wants another 1.2 billion gallons blended into our gasoline. Why should we do this – considering the land, water, environmental, CO2, fuel efficiency and other costs, rampant fraud in the RIN program, and impacts on small refiners? If we replace all fossil fuels with biofuels, how much land, water, fertilizer and energy would that require?<br /><br />9) Wind turbines are land intensive, heavily subsidized and exempted from most environmental rules. They kill millions of birds and bats. Their electricity is expensive and unreliable, and requires fossil fuel backup generators. Why should this industry be exempted from endangered species laws – and allowed to conduct bogus mortality studies, and prevent independent investigators from reviewing the work?<br /><br />Mr. Trump, keep an open mind. But keep exercising due diligence. Trust, but verify. And fire anyone who lies or refuses to answer, or provides the climate equivalent of shoddy work and substandard concrete.<br /><br /><i>Via email</i><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-62231628774513047652016-11-28T01:26:00.001+13:002016-11-28T01:28:20.025+13:00<br /><br /><br /><b>National Geographic asked photographers to show the impact of climate change</b><br /><br />The idea that you could photograph climate change is a considerable absurdity so it should be no great surprise that the results embodied much absurdity.<br /><br />And equally absurd is the idea that you can support a generalization -- &nbsp;which global warming is -- by selected cases of something. I used to be something of a photographer in my youth and I am quite confident that I could produce a series of shots to "illustrate" just about anything.<br /><br />For instance, just about everyone seems to have heard that Australia is a "dry" continent. &nbsp;It is. &nbsp;Most of it is deserts. But just by wandering around the tropical areas where I was born and bred, I could produce photos of things in Australia that "prove" the opposite: Photos of lush greenery, big rivers, scenic waterfalls and images of dairy cows grazing lush green fields of long grass. &nbsp;Thus I could "prove" that Australia is NOT a dry country. &nbsp;In fact, however, such a procedure would in fact give precisely wrong results.<br /><br />Given the feebleness of the presentation, I am not going to attempt to critique it all so I will advert briefly to the text underneath a picture of animals grazing at dusk.<br /><br /><img height="400" src="https://img.washingtonpost.com/rw/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/11/23/Health-Environment-Science/Images/yourshot-1358849-91007771479932581.jpg" width="600" /><br /><br />Underneath the picture, the following text occurs:<br /><br />"These animals have found the secret stash of the orange farmer who dumps the oranges that have fallen from his trees at least seven kilometers away from the orchards to control the breeding of the fruit fly. It is the end of a winter exacerbated by global warming, which makes the season longer and drier and the summer hotter with less rain in an already dry climate"<br /><br />Which is complete nonsense. &nbsp;The scene is apparently from somewhere in South Africa and it may be that there was unusually low rainfall there recently. Rainfall varies. &nbsp;But the low rainfall was NOT due to global warming. &nbsp;Due to El Nino, there was indeed an unusually warm period globally in late 2015 and early 2016 but why should that cause less rain? &nbsp;Hot weather evaporates more water off the oceans and that comes down again as rain. Which is why the tropics are wetter than elsewhere. El Nino should have caused MORE rain, not less. &nbsp;Even the most basic physics seems to be unknown to most Warmists -- JR.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures suggesting rise may not be down to man-made emissions</b><br /><br />Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record.<br /><br />The news comes amid mounting evidence that the recent run of world record high temperatures is about to end.<br /><br />The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, has been caused by the end of El Nino – the warming of surface waters in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America.<br /><br />Some scientists, including Dr Gavin Schmidt, head of Nasa’s climate division, have claimed that the recent highs were mainly the result of long-term global warming.<br /><br />Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans.<br /><br />The new fall in temperatures suggests they were right.<br /><br />Big El Ninos always have an immense impact on world weather, triggering higher than normal temperatures over huge swathes of the world. The 2015-16 El Nino was probably the strongest since accurate measurements began, with the water up to 3C warmer than usual.<br /><br />It has now been replaced by a La Nina event – when the water in the same Pacific region turns colder than normal. This also has worldwide impacts, driving temperatures down rather than up.<br /><br />The satellite measurements over land respond quickly to El Nino and La Nina. Temperatures over the sea are also falling, but not as fast, because the sea retains heat for longer.<br /><br />This means it is possible that by some yardsticks, 2016 will be declared as hot as 2015 or even slightly hotter – because El Nino did not vanish until the middle of the year.<br /><br />But it is almost certain that next year, large falls will also be measured over the oceans, and by weather station thermometers on the surface of the planet – exactly as happened after the end of the last very strong El Nino in 1998. If so, some experts will be forced to eat their words.<br /><br />Last year, Dr Schmidt said 2015 would have been a record hot year even without El Nino.<br /><br />‘The reason why this is such a warm record year is because of the long-term underlying trend, the cumulative effect of the long-term warming trend of our Earth,’ he said. This was ‘mainly caused’ by the emission of greenhouse gases by humans.<br /><br />Dr Schmidt also denied that there was any ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming between the 1998 and 2015 El Ninos.<br /><br />But on its website home page yesterday, Nasa featured a new study which said there was a hiatus in global warming before the recent El Nino, and discussed why this was so. Last night Dr Schmidt had not returned a request for comment.<br /><br />However, both his own position, and his Nasa division, may be in jeopardy. US President-elect Donald Trump is an avowed climate change sceptic, who once claimed it was a hoax invented by China.<br /><br />Last week, Mr Trump’s science adviser Bob Walker said he was likely to axe Nasa’s $1.9 billion (about £1.4 billion) climate research budget.<br /><br />Other experts have also disputed Dr Schmidt’s claims. Professor Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, and president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said yesterday: ‘I disagree with Gavin. The record warm years of 2015 and 2016 were primarily caused by the super El Nino.’<br /><br />The slowdown in warming was, she added, real, and all the evidence suggested that since 1998, the rate of global warming has been much slower than predicted by computer models – about 1C per century.<br /><br />David Whitehouse, a scientist who works with Lord Lawson’s sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the massive fall in temperatures following the end of El Nino meant the warming hiatus or slowdown may be coming back.<br /><br />‘According to the satellites, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino.<br /><br />The data clearly shows El Nino for what it was – a short-term weather event,’ he said.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3974846/Stunning-new-data-indicates-El-Nino-drove-record-highs-global-temperatures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Captain Cook's detailed 1778 records confirm global warming today in the Arctic (?)</b><br /><br /><i>The Warmists really are incredible. &nbsp;Here they are generalizing from ONE YEAR! &nbsp;We know that Actic ice waxes and wanes so how are we to know that 1778 was typical of anything? &nbsp;It could have been an unusually hot or an unusually cold year. &nbsp;We have no way of knowing. This is faith, not science</i><br /><br />Passengers simmered in Jacuzzis and feasted on gourmet cuisine this summer as the 850-foot cruise ship Crystal Serenity moved through the Northwest Passage. <i>[Led by two icebreakers!]</i><br /><br />But in the summer of 1778, when Capt. James Cook tried to find a Western entrance to the route, his men toiled on frost-slicked decks and complained about having to supplement dwindling rations with walrus meat.<br /><br />The British expedition was halted north of the Bering Strait by "ice which was as compact as a wall and seemed to be 10 or 12 feet high at least," according to the captain's journal. Cook's ships followed the ice edge all the way to Siberia in their futile search for an opening, sometimes guided through fog by the braying of the unpalatable creatures the crew called Sea Horses.<br /><br />More than two centuries later, scientists are mining meticulous records kept by Cook and his crew for a new perspective on the warming that has opened the Arctic in a way the 18th century explorer could never have imagined.<br /><br />Working with maps and logs from Cook's voyage and other historical records and satellite imagery, University of Washington mathematician Harry Stern has tracked changes in ice cover in the Chukchi Sea, between Alaska and Russia, over nearly 240 years.<br /><br />The results, published this month in the journal Polar Geography, confirm the significant shrinkage of the summer ice cap and shed new light on the timing of the transformation. The analysis also extends the historical picture back nearly 75 years, building on previous work with ships' records from the 1850s.<br /><br />"This old data helps us look at what conditions were like before we started global warming, and what the natural variability was," said Jim Overland, a Seattle-based oceanographer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who was not involved in Stern's project.<br /><br />Though earlier explorers ventured into the frigid waters off Alaska, Cook was the first to map the ice edge, Stern said. Cook undertook the voyage, which also covered the Northwest coast, on orders from King George III to seek a shorter trading route between Europe and the Far East across the top of the world.<br /><br />Stymied by the ice, Cook headed for the winter to Hawaii, where he was killed by native people.<br /><br />Stern's analysis found that for more than 200 years after Cook's visit the summer ice cover in the Chukchi Sea fluctuated, but generally extended south to near where Cook encountered it.<br /><br /><a href="http://phys.org/news/2016-11-captain-cook-global-today-arctic.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Another Blow To CO2…French Scientist’s Research Attributes Most Global Warming To Solar Activity</b><br /><br />More fresh climate science just out showing that the sun is the main driver of our climate.<br /><br />The Dutch-British publishing company Elsevier B.V. has put online a paper entitled “Earth Climate Identification vs. Detection and Attribution”. This publication, referenced on the ScienceDirect website, was revised in the due rules by a peer committee in Annual Reviews in Control (ARC), one of the seven scientific journals of IFAC, federating thousands of international experts in automatic control and modelisation of complex systems.<br /><br />The paper’s author, Professor Philippe de Larminat, applied the proven techniques of dynamical systems identification to the Earth climate, using paleoclimatic databases available from the major institutes and international organizations. It follows that “with a 90% probability level, one cannot reject the hypothesis of a zero anthropogenic contribution”. While “the hypothesis of a low sensitivity to solar activity must be rejected with a probability level greater than 90%.”<br /><br />Conversely, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considers that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the middle of the 20th century”, this on the basis of the “Detection and Attribution”, a theory explicitly dedicated to anthropogenic attribution of recent climate change.<br /><br />The paper presents and clarifies the causes of this contradiction:<br /><br />* The main one is due to the durations used for climate observations: a thousand years for identification, at most one hundred and fifty years for the Detection-Attribution, thereby eliminating the millennia events of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, notoriously correlated to solar activity. “It has the effect of minimizing the contribution of solar activity,” says the author.<br /><br />* The second contradiction is due to a confusion between cause and effect, about the El Niño events. The author examines the reasons for this “heavy methodological error, which is obvious to any expert in systems science”.<br /><br />Could the Philippe de Larminat publication challenge the prevailing consensus on anthropogenic climate change, consensus which is turning the world economic issues (COP 21, 22) as far as the moral issues (Laudato si)? Questioned on the eventuality that a new consensus can emerge, that of a preponderant influence of solar activity on the climate, the author only recalls:<br /><br />Neither the consensus nor the votes have any place in science; only the evidence matter. To the argument of authority, French philosopher Descartes opposed the authority of the argument. But the consensus is only a submission to the argument of authority, the lowest ever.”<br /><br />This publication, whose part is accessible even to the non-experts, confirms the conclusions already advanced by the author in his previous work “Climate change – identification and projections” (ISTE/Wiley, 2014).<br /><br /><a href="http://notrickszone.com/2016/11/15/another-blow-to-co2-french-scientists-research-attributes-most-global-warming-to-solar-activity/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Australian anti-immigration politician slips into wetsuit for barrier reef trip -- and finds that all is well with the reef</b><br /><br /><i>Most of the media have been amusing about this. &nbsp;They say that she has embarrassed herself by not going to the "right" part of the reef. &nbsp;But that claim is itself a message that only part of the reef is affected by bleaching. &nbsp;We can perhaps be thankful to them for getting that message out to a wider audience.<br /><br />There are many possible causes of bleaching but the &nbsp;loons of the Green/Left are sure it is caused by global warming. &nbsp;And that might pass muster when we note that the bleaching has occurred in the most Northerly (and hence warmer) one-third of the reef. &nbsp;Problem: &nbsp;Coral LIKES warmth, which is why the Northern part of the reef normally has the greatest biological diversity. &nbsp;Normally, the further North you go (i.e. the warmer you get), the greater the diversity. &nbsp;So the cause of the bleaching is unknown. <br /><br />As a fallback position, the Greenies say that the bleaching is caused by agricultural runoff. &nbsp;Problem: The Northern part of the reef runs along an area of the Cape York Peninsula where there is virtually NO agriculture. &nbsp;The soils there are too poor for it to be economically feasible. &nbsp;So no runoff. &nbsp;"Facts be damned" seems to be the Greenie motto<br /><br /></i><br />Pauline Hanson has slipped into a wetsuit and made a splash on the Great Barrier Reef to show the world the natural wonder is worth visiting amid claims it is dying.<br /><br />The senator, who once cooked fish for a living, went swimming off Great Keppel Island today and expressed concerns about reports on the reef's health.<br /><br />Ms Hanson says agenda-driven groups are telling "untruths" about the state of the reef that are harming the tourism industry and businesses. &nbsp;"When we have these agendas that are actually destroying our tourism industry and businesses ... we need to ask the questions and we want answers," she said. "The Greens have no concern about people and jobs that we need here in Queensland, and the escalating costs that we are feeling from the effects of this."<br /><br />One Nation senators Malcolm Roberts, who has long argued the case that global warming doesn't stack up, and Brian Burston were also on the reef trip.<br /><br />Mr Roberts said people had stopped coming to the reef because they were being told it was dead and that Australia should not be reporting on its health to the UN agency UNESCO.<br /><br />Conservationists are concerned climate change is putting severe stress on the reef, which experienced a massive coral bleaching event this year, and some have declared it's dying at an unprecedented rate.<br /><br />They say Ms Hanson and her senators visited the wrong part of the reef as the southern sections had been least affected by the worst bleaching event in the icon's history.<br /><br />The World Wildlife Fund said One Nation should have visited Lizard Island where bleaching, caused by high water temperatures, has killed much of the coral.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/pauline-hanson-slips-into-wetsuit-for-reef-trip/ar-AAkJkeX">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-43512013397990528752016-11-27T01:35:00.001+13:002016-11-27T01:35:35.939+13:00<br /><br /><b>More Orwellian thinking from the Green/Left</b><br /><br /><i>Press "freedom" = restricting the voice of global warming skepticism</i><br /><br />Amazing to see what Christiane Amanpour had to say about global warming and "press freedom" -- starting at 4:35 <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/24/amanpour_press_faces_existential_crisis_under_trump_i_believe_in_being_truthful_not_neutral.html">here</a><br /><br />The transcript on the link (slightly different from what she actually says in the video) includes the following:<br /><br /><br />"It appeared much of the media got itself into knots trying to differentiate between balance, objectivity, neutrality, and crucially, truth.<br /><br />We cannot continue the old paradigm--let's say like over global warming, where 99.9 percent of the empirical scientific evidence is given equal play with the tiny minority of deniers.<br /><br />I learned long ago, covering the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia, never to equate victim with aggressor, never to create a false moral or factual equivalence, because then you are an accomplice to the most unspeakable crimes and consequences. (my emphasis)<br /><br />Wikipedia states that "The CPJ International Press Freedom Awards honor journalists or their publications around the world who show courage in defending press freedom despite facing attacks, threats, or imprisonment."<br /><br /><br />Isn't it ironic that an award for press freedom is going to an individual who feels that defending press freedom means that journalists must self-censor and RESTRICT their readers' access to countering and opposing views. And she equates reporting of skeptics' views with "ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia" and "unspeakable crimes".<br /><br />And note that the 97% consensus has now become, according to Amanpour, 99.9%. &nbsp;She is obviously not much interested the actual facts.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Sweden's Royal Academy of Science highly critical of wind power</b><br /><br />Translation of the main points by EPAW's spokesman in Scandinavia, Peter Skeel Hjorth:<br /><br />Multi-billion-dollar subsidies for wind power are wasteful<br />Wind power production is negligible<br /><br />10 TWh of wind power would require costly expansions to the distribution network<br /><br />Expansion of wind power will harm Swedish competitiveness<br /><br />Expansion of wind power will cost dearly to electricity customers<br /><br />Expansion of wind power will not reduce carbon dioxide emissions<br /><br />The subsidies could be better spent on other things<br /><br /><br />Thirteen of Sweden's most eminent scientists within climate and energy explain that the current Swedish wind power investment is a huge mistake that will cost the Swedish people billions of dollars without providing any benefits to the country.<br /><br />It is also stated that wind production is minuscule, but was it to increase significantly then it would entail additional costs to electricity consumers in the form of demands for increased network expansion and back up power generation.<br /><br />All in all this means that the expansion of wind power as a whole is negative for the electricity consumers and for Sweden's competitiveness. There are no environmental benefits either because wind power is not able to reduce carbon emissions.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.epaw.org/echoes.php?article=n81">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Antarctic ice has hardly melted in 100 years, log books from Captain Scott's doomed expedition to the South Pole confirm </b><br /><br /><i>Which rather contradicts this dramatic report: &nbsp;"In 2014, researchers claimed the melting of glaciers in West Antarctica may be irreversible. A study by Nasa and the University of California, Irvine revealed the barren region was haemorrhaging ice at a rate triple that of a decade before. The team found the rate by taking radar, laser and satellite measurements of the glaciers' mass between 1992 and 2013. 'The mass loss of these glaciers is increasing at an amazing rate,' said scientist Isabella Velicogna, jointly of the University of California, Irvine and Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory"</i><br /><br />A century after their deaths, Antarctic explorers Captain Robert Scott and Sir Ernest Shackleton are helping further our knowledge of the frozen continent. Log books recovered from their doomed expeditions show the amount of sea ice there has barely changed in 100 years.<br /><br />Only one region, the Wendell Sea, has seen a significant reduction – 14 per cent – scientists from the University of Reading found.<br /><br />Scott died with four of his men in 1912 during their ill-fated quest to become the first to the South Pole.<br /><br />The team reached their goal only to find their rival, the Norwegian Roald Amundsen, had beaten them by five weeks. They perished on the return journey.<br /><br />Shackleton, who had explored Antarctica with Scott a decade before, led an expedition to trek across the continent between 1914 and 1917. He had to be rescued when his ship sank. He died in 1922.<br /><br />Log books detailing the extent of the sea ice in Antarctica were recovered from both expeditions.<br /><br />These have been used to help fill gaps in the data – complete records of ice cover exist only for the period since scientists began to use satellites to survey the planet.<br /><br />Researchers looked through the logbooks of early Antarctic explorers from the 'Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration (1897-1917)' and compared the recorded observations of Antarctic ice from the time with satellite images from today.<br /><br />Jonathan Day, who led the University of Reading study, said: 'The missions of Scott and Shackleton are remembered in history as heroic failures, yet the data collected by these and other explorers could profoundly change the way we view the ebb and flow of Antarctic sea ice.<br /><br />'We know that sea ice in the Antarctic has increased slightly over the past 30 years, since satellite observations began.<br /><br />'Scientists have been grappling to understand this trend in the context of global warming, but these findings suggest it may not be new.'<br /><br />It is not known why Antarctic ice has grown since the 1970s.<br /><br />Some scientists believe the widening hole in the atmosphere's ozone layer has caused stronger surface winds over Antarctica and more frequent storms in the Southern Ocean.<br /><br />But the results from the 'heroic age' of polar exploration suggest this also happened earlier in the 20th century.<br /><br />The log books give details of ice cover, the state of the sea, the weather and wildlife spotted from the deck.<br /><br />The study implies Antarctic sea ice levels in the early 1900s were similar to today, at between 2 million and 2.8 million square miles (5.3 million and 7.4 million square kilometres).<br /><br />Estimates suggest levels were significantly higher in the 1950s.<br /><br />The research, published in the European Geosciences Union journal The Cryosphere, suggests the Antarctic is much less sensitive to the effects of climate change than the Arctic, which has seen a dramatic decline in sea ice.<br /><br />Mr Day said: 'The Southern Ocean is largely a 'black hole' as far as historical climate change data is concerned, but future activities planned to recover data from naval and whaling ships will help us to understand past climate variations and what to expect in the future.'<br /><br /><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3966442/Antarctic-ice-hardly-melted-100-years-log-books-Captain-Scott-s-doomed-expedition-South-Pole-confirm.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>All power to energy security: Australia could learn from Trump</b><br /><br />When US president-elect Donald Trump listed his six top priorities for executive action this week on “day one” of becoming the most powerful man in the world, naturally most attention was grabbed by his very first decision: withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.<br /><br />Yet in global terms, and in Australia’s interest, his second priority was just as important.<br /><br />This was Trump’s pledge to “cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American ­energy including shale energy and clean coal, creating many millions of high-paying jobs”.<br /><br />Energy security was placed above national security.<br /><br />The jobs of coalminers, the use of low-cost shale deposits for ­energy and the creation of manufacturing jobs were placed ahead of national security, and the withdrawal from the Obama administration’s commitment to the Paris agreement on climate change didn’t even rate a mention.<br /><br />There is global agitation about the pragmatism of protecting jobs through energy security, providing energy at a low enough price so people can afford to use it and producing energy when ­people need it, as well as an ­imperative to lower carbon emissions. The hidden cost of “intermittency” — the hallmark of wind and solar production — and the danger of blackouts are being recognised.<br /><br />Australia is fortunate in that, historically, it has had low-cost ­energy, enormous natural res­ources, a pristine environment and the benefit of seeing how policy parameters such as the European emissions trading system and subsidised ­renewable energy programs work in practice.<br /><br />Trump’s priorities and actions on energy are vital to Australia’s own energy future, economic growth, job creation and climate change actions as precipitous political decisions around the world are distorting energy markets, pushing up costs for ­industry, driving jobs across borders, exporting manufacturing ­opportunities and perversely ­affecting markets and carbon emissions.<br /><br />There is also a political neces­sity to continue to get public support for climate change initiatives, although Trump has demonstrated there can be a white-hot anger about ideological climate change policies that don’t recognise the hurt to workers.<br /><br />In recent weeks in Australia the closure of the Victorian Hazelwood coal-fired power station has been announced with the loss of 750 jobs in the Latrobe Valley, in part because of French government climate change policy; ­export coal prices have soared; coalmines have reopened; and AGL, one of the biggest domestic gas suppliers, has set aside $17 million for a feasibility study for Australia, the biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas, to import lower-cost LNG from suppliers in the Middle East.<br /><br />As well, South Australia experi­enced catastrophic power blackouts, Victoria became a net electricity importer, with the ­potential for dire shortages or blackouts at times of extreme ­demand, and the Victorian Labor government introduced a bill this week to extend its existing moratorium on conventional onshore gas exploration to 2020.<br /><br />The Greens, environmental ­activists and the ALP are simultaneously building a public campaign for the transition from coal and gas to a mainly renew­able ­energy future that is putting cutting carbon emissions ahead of ­energy and job security.<br /><br />It is a challenge for all sides of politics in form and substance.<br /><br />According to Industry, Innovation and Science Minister Greg Hunt, the Victorian government’s decision to continue to ban onshore natural gas exploration is the final act in laying the foundation for a “manufacturing crisis” with a looming shortfall in natural gas supply ­because Australia is locked into long-term LNG exports, and Victoria and NSW are banning or ­effectively banning gas exploration and production.<br /><br />“It is absolutely clear there is no shortage of gas resources in the ground but there is a shortage of gas supply to homes and industry,” Hunt tells ­Inquirer. “We have to be honest that the effective closure of new supplies will risk jobs, will risk prices and will risk economic activity.<br /><br />“The sad part, over and above that, is that potentially we choose higher emissions sources of ­energy for electricity.”<br /><br />Whereas Australia is aiming to reform its energy market, upgrade its electricity interchange, boost renewable energy, keep coal and gas as integral parts of energy generation and job creation for decades to come, and meet its international agreements to cut carbon emissions by 26 per cent to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, Trump is happy to shed global ­obligations to provide cheap power for the US economy.<br /><br />He campaigned successfully on creating American jobs and specifically on returning the manufacturing and mining jobs lost in states such as Pennsylvania, which he snatched from Hillary Clinton, sensing the blue-collar fear and reality of job losses because of climate change policies closing mines and raising costs to support renewable energy.<br /><br />As for Australia, seen as one of the world’s great carbon demons because of its coal production, it does not have the option of dumping carbon polices as Trump ­intends to do, but neither should Australian governments, state and federal, adopt distorting policies that push costs to domestic and ­industry users to levels that are punitive, unsustainable and a threat to a cohesive energy supply and security.<br /><br />Without commenting on any US administration’s domestic policy, Hunt makes the point: “American manufacturing in ­recent years has become more competitive in significant measure because they have had access to lower-cost gas; it actually brought gas on board. As a matter of economics, if there is more natural gas available in the US, then their manufacturing will be even more competitive.”<br /><br />In the past 10 years in the US, electricity generation from gas has risen from 18.7 per cent to 32.5 per cent while coal has fallen from 49.5 per cent to 33 per cent. Coal and natural gas are now almost equal as the producers of American electricity. During the same period, renew­able electricity energy has grown from 8.8 per cent to 13.8 per cent and nuclear has ­remained steady at 19.4 per cent.<br /><br />The real lesson for Australia in the US experience of the role of gas, coal and renewables in this energy-climate change mix is not the increased potential economic threat from Trump’s low-cost powered US industrial base but from Europe.<br /><br />Although Trump’s first priority involved ensuring the US created American jobs by producing steel and “making cars”, the threat to Australia’s coal exports — which even Bill Shorten admits must go on for decades — is the framing of public opinion and policy development that puts energy security at risk.<br /><br />Ideologically driven energy ­decisions in Europe taken years ago provide the example of how Australia should not proceed: ­unrealistic renewable energy targets, unsustainable renewable ­energy subsidies, rising electricity prices, precipitously doing away with fossil fuels, politically driven decisions to close nuclear power plants, the export of jobs and, ironically, the start of the failure of carbon emission reduction policies.<br /><br />In the past two years Germany’s renowned world leader status on renewable energy has started to be tarnished as political decisions to subsidise renewables and to close nuclear power plants, coalmines and coal-fired power plants have ­resulted in price rises and ­environmental anomalies.<br /><br />Rising costs for industry’s power have forced companies to relocate, the government has told renewable energy producers they have to manage without subsidies, coal-fired power stations are being commissioned, brown coal — lignite — mines are being opened and brown “dirty” coal is still a large part of baseload electricity generation.<br /><br />Paradoxically, as Germany tries to become nuclear free, it is buying nuclear-generated electricity from France and the French are importing cheap lignite-powered electricity from Germany. This makes a mockery of carbon emission and nuclear energy ­reductions.<br /><br />France introduced a carbon tax on coal-fired electricity and cut subsidies to coal — in part affecting the Latrobe Valley — as a climate change policy, but higher costs forced the government to cancel the tax within a few months.<br /><br />As Europe heads into winter, there are predictions of greater ­demand from Britain and The Netherlands from electricity suppliers, and some of that will be coming from Germany’s “dirty ­secret” of lignite. Germany is being attacked by industry for higher prices creating job losses and by environmentalists for dropping its specific carbon emission reduction targets for 2050.<br /><br />Australia has the opportunity to bring a sober, pragmatic but ­environmentally responsible ener­gy security to bear in the ­national interest, but at the ­moment the approach is fractured, ideologically driven and not receiving the priority Trump is prepared to give energy security.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/dennis-shanahan/all-power-to-energy-security-australia-could-learn-from-trump/news-story/a8a8fbfe1497669f03dbbd0367e67799">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>CLEXIT: Harmful, Costly, Unscientific Climate Treaties should be torn up</b><br /><br />A new international organization aims to prevent ratification of the costly and dangerous Paris global warming treaty which is being promoted by the EU and the present US administration.<br />“CLEXIT” (CLimate Exit) was inspired by the Brexit decision of the British people to withdraw from the increasingly dictatorial grasp of the EU bureaucracy.<br /><br />Without any publicity or serious recruiting, Clexit has attracted over 60 well-informed science, business and economic leaders from 16 countries.<br /><br />The secretary of Clexit, Mr Viv Forbes from Australia, said that widespread enforcement of the Paris climate treaty would be a global tragedy.<br /><br />“For the EU and the rest of the Western world, ratification and enforcement of the Paris Treaty (and all the other associated decrees and Agendas) would herald the end of low-cost hydrocarbon transport and electricity, and the exit of their manufacturing, processing and refining industries to countries with low-cost energy.<br /><br />“For developing countries, the Paris Treaty would deny them the benefits of reliable low-cost hydrocarbon energy, compelling them to rely on biomass heating and costly weather-dependent and unreliable power supplies, thus prolonging and increasing their dependency on international handouts. They will soon resent being told to remain forever in an energy-deprived wind/solar/wood/bicycle economy.<br /><br />“Perhaps the most insidious feature of the UN climate plan is the “Green Climate Fund”. Under this scheme, selected nations (“The rich”) are marked to pour billions of dollars into a green slush fund. The funds will then be used to bribe other countries (“developing and emerging nations”) into adopting silly green energy policies.<br /><br />“Naturally some smart politicians and speculators in the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and in the small island nations, understand that they can profit from the Paris Treaty by gaming the rules on things like carbon credits, or milking the green fund for “climate compensation” or “green energy technology”. This will only work for a while, and when the handouts stop, the re-adjustment to reality will be very painful.<br /><br />“This UN-driven war on carbon energy has already caused massive losses and dislocation of western industry. If allowed to continue as envisaged by the Paris Treaty, this economic recession will become a world-wide depression, and all nations will suffer.<br /><br />“We must stop this futile waste of community savings; cease the destruction and dislocation of human industry; stop killing rare bats and birds with wind turbine blades and solar/thermal sizzlers; stop pelletising trees and shipping them across the world to feed power stations designed to burn coal; stop converting food to motor vehicle fuel; and stop the clearing of bush and forests for biofuel cultivation and plantations.”<br /><br />“Carbon dioxide does not control the climate. It is an essential plant food and more carbon dioxide will produce more plant growth and a greener globe.”<br /><br /><a href="https://www.wunderground.com/blog/satmaster/clexit-harmful-costly-unscientific-climate-treaties-should-be-torn-u">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-49647273619381553342016-11-25T01:27:00.002+13:002016-11-25T01:28:28.221+13:00<br /><br /><b>Some matters arising from Trump's NYT interview</b><br /><br /><i>The Donald's Scottish golf course has been widely praised and Trump himself seems to feel a strong connection to it. &nbsp;But in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html">his NYT interview</a> Friedman hinted that sea-level rises might flood it. &nbsp;Would he want his golf cause to be flooded? &nbsp;From what I can see the course is well and truly above sea level so that claim would probably not fly but in case parts of it are a bit low, it would be nice if someone was on hand to draw Trump's attention to the official sea level information for Aberdeen. &nbsp;The Trump International Golf Links are just 10 miles North of Aberdeen.<br /><br />The NOAA chart for Aberdeen is <a href="http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=170-011">here</a>. &nbsp;You will see from it that the sea level rise there averages out to about 3 inches per century and from about 1985 on there appears to be no trend at all. &nbsp;That should immunize Trump against the usual leftist lies about the oceans rising.<br /><br />In the same interview "Pinch" Sulzberger claimed that America has never had storms as bad as ones that hit recently. &nbsp;So perhaps the story below could be mentioned:<br /></i><br /><br />The Great New England Hurricane of 1938<br /><br />On September 21, 1938, one of the most destructive and powerful hurricanes in recorded history struck Long Island and Southern New England. The storm developed near the Cape Verde Islands on September 9, tracking across the Atlantic and up the Eastern Seaboard. The storm hit Long Island and Southern Connecticut on September 21, moving at a forward speed of 47 mph! Sustained hurricane force winds were felt across central and eastern Long Island and southeastern Connecticut. The hurricane produced a destructive storm surge flooding coastal communities as well as producing three to seven inches of rainfall.<br /><br />FACTS<br /><br />Max Recorded Sustained Wind: 121 mph at Blue Hill Observatory, MA<br /><br />Max Recorded Wind Gust: 186 mph at Blue Hill Observatory, MA<br /><br />Highest Sustained Wind Measurement not Influenced by Terrain: 109 mph at Fishers Island, NY (Landsea et al 2013)<br /><br />Lowest Observed Pressure: 27.94 in (946.2 mb) at Bellport, NY<br /><br />Estimated Lowest Pressure: 27.79 in (941 mb) near Brentwood, NY as the wind and pressure centers were slightly displaced due to its fast speed and extra-tropical transition (Landsea et al. 2013, National Hurricane Center; Hurricane Research Division Re-Analysis Project)<br /><br />Speed at landfall: 47 mph (Landsea et al. 2013, National Hurricane Center; Hurricane Research Division Re-Analysis Project)<br /><br />Peak Storm Surge: 17 ft. above normal high tide (Rhode Island)<br /><br />Peak Wave Height: 50 ft. at Gloucester, MA<br /><br />Deaths: 700<br /><br />Homeless: Approx. 63,000<br /><br />Homes/Buildings Destroyed: Approx. 8,900<br /><br />Trees Destroyed: Approx. 2 Billion<br /><br />Boats Lost or Destroyed: Approx. 3,300<br /><br />Cost: $620 million (1938 Dollars); Equivalent to approx. $41 billion using 2005 inflation, wealth, and population normalization then estimated to 2010 Dollars (Blake and Gibney 2011).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.weather.gov/okx/1938HurricaneHome">SOURCE</a><br /><div><br /></div>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-51562834798249705262016-11-24T01:39:00.003+13:002016-11-24T01:39:32.118+13:00<br /><b>Study sheds new insights into global warming 'hiatus' (?)</b><br /><br /><i>This is just an expression of opinion. &nbsp;No new data here. &nbsp;A sentence from <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000417/pdf">the journal abstract</a> is amusing: &nbsp;"A review of recent scientific publications on the “hiatus” shows the difficulty and complexities in pinpointing the oceanic sink of the “missing heat”. &nbsp;In other words, they have no evidence to back up their theory. &nbsp;And they certainly have no evidence that the hiatus is "temporary". &nbsp;That is just a statement of faith</i><br /><br />A new study of the temporary slowdown in the global average surface temperature warming trend observed between 1998 and 2013 concludes the phenomenon represented a redistribution of energy within the Earth system, with Earth's ocean absorbing the extra heat. The phenomenon was referred to by some as the "global warming hiatus." Global average surface temperature, measured by satellites and direct observations, is considered a key indicator of climate change.<br /><br />In a study published today in Earth's Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, lead author Xiao-Hai Yan of the University of Delaware, Newark, along with scientists from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, and several other institutions discuss new understanding of the phenomenon. The paper grew out of a special U.S. Climate Variability and Predictability Program (CLIVAR) panel session at the 2015 American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting.<br /><br />"The hiatus period gives scientists an opportunity to understand uncertainties in how climate systems are measured, as well as to fill in the gap in what scientists know," Yan said.<br /><br />"NASA's examination of ocean observations has provided its own unique contribution to our knowledge of decadal climate trends and global warming," said Veronica Nieves, a researcher at JPL and the University of California, Los Angeles and co-author of the new study. "Scientists have more confidence now that Earth's ocean has continued to warm continuously through time. But the rate of global surface warming can fluctuate due to natural variations in the climate system over periods of a decade or so."<br /><br />Where's the missing heat?<br /><br />While Yan said it's difficult to reach complete consensus on such a complex topic, a thorough review of the literature and much discussion and debate revealed a number of key points on which these leading scientists concur:<br /><br />* &nbsp; &nbsp;Natural variability plays a large role in the rate of global mean surface warming on decadal time scales.<br /><br />* &nbsp; &nbsp;Improved understanding of how the ocean distributes and redistributes heat will help the scientific community better monitor Earth's energy budget.<br /><br />Earth's energy budget is a complex calculation of how much energy enters our climate system from the sun and what happens to it: how much is stored by the land, ocean or atmosphere.<br /><br />"To better monitor Earth's energy budget and its consequences, the ocean is most important to consider because the amount of heat it can store is extremely large when compared to the land or atmospheric capacity," said Yan.<br /><br />According to the paper, "arguably, ocean heat content—from the surface to the seafloor—might be a more appropriate measure of how much our planet is warming."<br /><br />Charting future research<br /><br />In the near term, the researchers hope this paper will lay the foundation for future research in the global change field. To begin, they suggest the climate community replace the term "global warming hiatus" with "global surface warming slowdown" to eliminate confusion.<br /><br />"This terminology more accurately describes the slowdown in global mean surface temperature rise in the late 20th century," Yan said.<br /><br />The scientists also called for continued support of current and future technologies for ocean monitoring to reduce observation errors in sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. This includes maintaining Argo, the main system for monitoring ocean heat content, and the development of Deep Argo to monitor the lower half of the ocean; the use of ship-based subsurface ocean temperature monitoring programs; advancements in robotic technologies such as autonomous underwater vehicles to monitor waters adjacent to land (like islands or coastal regions); and further development of real- or near-real-time deep ocean remote sensing methods.<br /><br />Yan's research group reported in a 2015 paper that some coastal oceans (e.g., U.S. East Coast, China Coast) responded faster to the recent global surface warming rate change than the global ocean.<br /><br />"Although these regions represent only a fraction of the ocean volume, the changing rate of ocean heat content is faster here, and real-time data and more research are needed to quantify and understand what is happening," Yan said.<br /><br />Variability and heat sequestration over specific regions (e.g., Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Southern Oceans, etc.) require further investigation, the authors conclude. However, there is broad agreement among the scientists and in the literature that the slowdown in the global mean surface temperature increase from 1998 to 2013 was due to increased uptake of heat energy by the global ocean.<br /><br /><a href="http://phys.org/news/2016-11-insights-global-hiatus.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>How Trump Can Reverse Obama Climate Change Regulations</b><br /><br />President-elect Donald Trump will come into power next year with the authority to redefine his predecessor’s ambitious and divisive legacy on climate and energy policy.<br /><br />Just as President Barack Obama has used regulations and executive actions to try and make the U.S. a world leader in cutting planet-warming emissions across much of the nation’s economy—especially targeting the coal industry—Trump can largely act alone to define his own agenda.<br /><br />“I really do think there will be some kind of reversal of Obama-era policies, but there are legal, political, and practical constraints on how far the Trump administration can go,” said Jody Freeman, the director of Harvard University’s environmental law and policy program, in an interview with The Daily Signal.<br /><br />Based on rhetoric in his campaign, and staffing choices he’s made, Trump has indicated he will pursue a dramatically different direction than Obama, one that relies on industry and market forces to continue the U.S.’ progress toward a cleaner energy future, and removes the government from much of that role.<br /><br />Under this vision, Trump, as he has vowed to do, would “cancel” last year’s Paris climate agreement, which commits more than 190 countries to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide.<br /><br />Trump cannot pull out of that global agreement right away. The soonest he can do is four years from when the deal went into effect, this November.<br /><br />But because the deal is not binding and only contains voluntary pledges with no enforcement mechanism, Trump can undermine the U.S.’ contribution to the agreement. &nbsp;He could do this by dismantling the Clean Power Plan, a set of regulations developed by the Environmental Protection Agency created to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation.<br /><br />The Clean Power plan, which is being contested in court and has not been enforced, encourages utility providers to replace coal-fired power plants with those using natural gas and renewable energy sources.<br /><br />Trump has named Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute—a leading opponent of the Clean Power Plan—to head his EPA transition team.<br /><br />Ebell, who is considered a key figure in shaping the president-elect’s energy views, has not spoken publicly about his role helping Trump.<br /><br />He provided The Daily Signal an exclusive statement about his views on climate change. “My [Competitive Enterprise Institute] colleagues and I agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing as a result of human activities—primarily burning coal, oil, and natural gas—and that this means the global mean temperature is likely to rise,” Ebell said. “Where we disagree with global warming alarmists is whether this amounts to a crisis that requires drastic action.”<br /><br />Ebell continued:<br /><br />"President Obama’s climate action plan and other proposed energy-rationing policies will have negligible effects on greenhouse gas levels, but pose a grave threat to our economy and especially to the health and well-being of poor people. I believe that we should pursue energy policies based on the scientifically-supported view that abundant energy makes the world safer and the environment more livable, as well as the humanitarian view that affordable energy should be accessible to those who need it most, particularly the most vulnerable among us."<br /><br /><i>‘He Can Do a Lot for Us’</i><br /><br />While Ebell did not describe specific policies he is recommending to Trump, the president-elect has been clear about one of his agenda items: encouraging more drilling to revive the coal industry, which has lost 68,000 jobs since 2011.<br /><br />“There is no question he can do a lot for us,” said Luke Popovich, vice president of National Mining Association, in an interview with The Daily Signal. “When people say he can’t bring all coal jobs back or restore coal to greatness, they are making perfection the enemy of the good. He can do a lot of good.”<br /><br />Popovich acknowledges the natural market forces that have contributed to the decline of coal.<br /><br />The hydraulic fracturing boom in shale fields that began a decade ago has flooded the market with natural gas, a cleaner and cheaper energy source. Coal now makes up 30 percent of electricity generated in the U.S., down from 50 percent in 2008.<br /><br />But Popovich attributes at least some of that decline to Obama’s regulations, mainly a EPA standard introduced in 2011 that limited emissions of mercury and other toxins from coal plants.<br /><br />He says Trump could boost coal’s prospects by canceling a new proposed Obama administration rule restricting mining discharges in streams, and lifting a moratorium on coal leases in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana.<br /><br />In addition, Popovich says the prospect of the Clean Power Plan pushed utility providers to switch from coal production to natural gas, and greener sources like wind and solar power.<br /><br />Last year, according to The New York Times, 94 coal-fired power plants were closed across the country, and this year 40 more are expected to close by the end of December.<br /><br />“Seeing the writing on the wall, utility companies have certainly not made bets that coal would stick around,” Popovich said. “Trump is not going to be able to restart all the coal fired plants that were retired. And we are not denying the marketplace has been a problem. But the biggest advantage of a Trump administration is he would be reverting to an all-of-the-above energy policy where we let the marketplace and not government determine what fuels would be used and at what volume.”<br /><br />Making Coal Viable<br /><br />Popovich, and other industry experts, say Trump can work with Congress on ways to make coal more viable in the future by incentivizing environmental improvements.<br /><br />“There are several no regrets policies that could involve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but also achieve some of Trump’s stated economic goals,” said Paul Bledsoe, an independent energy and climate change consultant who advised the Clinton administration on these issues. “There is a huge, burgeoning new economic sector in low emissions clean energy. This is a pretty big economic opportunity for the U.S. given our technological prowess.”<br /><br />Bledsoe, in an interview with The Daily Signal, says there is bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for legislation to expand tax credits for carbon capture and storage systems. These systems, which are expensive and far-off from being introduced on a large scale, would attach to coal production facilities and capture carbon emissions to sink them permanently in the ground.<br /><br />Some experts say efforts to save coal are difficult to achieve.<br /><br />At least some of Trump’s proposals, these experts note, would actually boost the fortunes of natural gas over coal, increasing its supply into the market.<br /><br />Trump has said he would ease restrictions on pipeline building, approving the Keystone XL pipeline that Obama blocked and the Dakota Access pipeline, a controversial project that has been delayed. He has also said he plans to weaken rules limiting gas exploration and production on federal land.<br /><br />“There are areas where he will get in conflict with himself,” said Michael Webber, deputy director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas, in an interview with The Daily Signal. “The energy industry is complex. No one thing makes everyone happy. So while pulling out of the Paris Agreement would help coal, and would hurt natural gas, some of his other proposals would do the opposite.”<br /><br />World Shift<br /><br />Others argue that if Trump prioritizes industry at the expense of addressing climate change, the U.S. would suffer politically as other countries—including rivals like China—move toward limiting emissions.<br /><br />Countries party to the Paris Agreement are discussing ways to punish the U.S. if Trump reneges from the pact, like introducing a carbon tariff, The New York Times reports.<br /><br />“The Trump administration cannot change the fact that the world is committed to solve this problem,” Freeman said. “The direction of energy composition is changing and is really baked into the private sector and into what investors expect. I personally think you need a regulatory foundation to drive home some of this change, and there will be a loss if the U.S. federal government exits the field.”<br /><br />If international pressure forced Trump to maintain the Paris commitment, and act less aggressively to reverse Obama policies, the president-elect, with Congress, could take more limited action. For example, they could press to provide financial support and retraining to communities harmed by coal’s fall.<br /><br />Popovich says coal miners would welcome any form of help, even if it has limited impact. &nbsp;“It has proven to be very difficult to implement [plans that help coal communities] in any way that’s going to help these people get back on their feet,” Popovich said. “No one is refusing it. But these guys are making enough money to support a family with coal, and it’s hard to know what government can do for them. They don’t want other jobs. They want the jobs they are losing.”<br /><br /><a href="http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/21/how-trump-can-reverse-obama-climate-change-regulations/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>The Trump-Climate Freakout is over nothing</b><br /><br /><i>He will reverse a policy that isn’t working anyway</i><br /><br />Given the emotional reactions that Donald Trump and climate change each trigger separately, they offer an especially combustible combination. Paul Krugman worries that Trump’s election “may have killed the planet.” Activist Bill McKibben calls Trump’s plan to reverse the Obama climate agenda by approving the Keystone XL pipeline and other fossil-fuel projects, repealing the Clean Power Plan, and withdrawing from the Paris agreement “the biggest, most against-the-odds, and most irrevocable bet any president has ever made about anything.”<br /><br />And let’s not forget “Zach,” the DNC staffer who reportedly stormed out of a post-election meeting upset that “I am going to die from climate change.”<br /><br />A Trump presidency offers many reasonable reasons to worry. But the fear that he will kill the planet, or even poor Zach, is at least one anxiety we can dispel. Just listen to President Obama. His administration developed a “Social Cost of Carbon” that attempts to quantify in economic terms the projected effects of climate change on everything from agriculture to public health to sea level, looking all the way out to the year 2100. So suppose President Trump not only reverses U.S. climate policy but ensures that the world permanently abandons efforts to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions. How much less prosperous than today does the Obama administration estimate we will be by century’s end? The world will be at least five times wealthier.<br /><br />Zach may even live to see it. The Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model, developed by William Nordhaus at Yale University, which has the highest climate costs of the Obama administration’s three models, estimates that global GDP in 2100 without climate change would be $510 trillion. That’s 575 percent higher than in 2015. The cost of climate change, the model estimates, will amount to almost 4 percent of GDP in that year. But the remaining GDP of $490 trillion is still 550 percent larger than today.<br /><br />Without climate change, DICE assumes average annual growth of 2.27 percent. With climate change, that rate falls to 2.22 percent; at no point does climate change shave even one-tenth of one point off growth. Indeed, by 2103, the climate-change-afflicted world surpasses the prosperity of the not-warming 2100.<br /><br />&nbsp;Zach might take issue with DICE’s underlying scientific and economic assumptions, yet the model produces cost estimates much higher than those of the PAGE and FUND models, which are also considered by the Social Cost of Carbon analysis. And while not every potential effect of climate change lends itself to quantification in economic terms, remember: This is the approach chosen by the Obama administration — not a group often known for trying to minimize the climate threat. The Paris agreement’s impact is at best a few tenths of a degree Celsius.<br /><br />Further, Trump is not significantly altering the likelihood of incurring these costs, because the climate agenda he intends to unravel is a failure already. Domestically, even the EPA acknowledged that its Clean Power Plan will have no meaningful influence on future temperatures. The State Department said the same about blocking the Keystone XL pipeline.<br /><br />The purported value of these policies was to display international “leadership.” But the global picture is no better. Even with U.S. “leadership,” the commitments made by other countries under the Paris agreement look almost identical to the paths those countries were on already. Thus the agreement’s impact is at best a few tenths of a degree Celsius. MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, for instance, projected 3.9°C of warming by 2100 without the Paris agreement and 3.7°C with it.<br /><br />Proponents of the agreement argue it will nonetheless spur clean-energy investment. “It is going to move the marketplace,” said Secretary of State John Kerry. It is “a break-away agreement which actually changes the paradigm.” It is “going to spur massive investment.”<br /><br />Instead, investment has plummeted. Over the first three quarters of 2016, global clean-energy investment is down 29 percent relative to 2015. Q3 investment saw a 43 percent drop from Q3 2015 — falling to its lowest level since the George W. Bush administration.<br /><br />Bizarrely, some analysts have reversed course and now argue that if the United States abandons Paris, we will be left behind while the world continues with climate action. Alden Meyer, director of policy and strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The Atlantic: “China, Europe, Brazil, India and other countries will continue to move ahead with the climate commitments they made under Paris no matter what the next president does, because these commitments are in their own national interest.”<br /><br />That only confirms the weakness of the Paris agreement and the futility of President Obama’s climate agenda. If everyone is still just pursuing their national interest, what has American “leadership” accomplished? And what is really lost in the transition to a Trump agenda?<br /><br />The preferred narrative is obvious: The world was so close to solving this climate-change thing until Donald Trump came along. But in fact the world was still on square one. If anything, activists should be relieved that Trump’s election will prevent them from ever being held accountable for the costly and ineffective policies they pursued.<br /><br />They might also be relieved to learn that — even with no climate policy at all — the world will continue to grow healthier and wealthier.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442383/donald-trump-climate-change">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>The climate cat-and-mouse game and Trump</b><br /><br /><i>It was all just a charade</i><br /><br />Climate diplomacy is just war by other means. In fact, climate as diplomacy took birth for this purpose though the pretense at the surface is anything but. The initial momentum of the climate movement was Malthusian – directed at overconsumption of ‘resources’ and ‘overpopulation’ of the earth by the wrong types of human beings in developing countries.<br /><br />Paradoxically however, the movement incorporated globally negotiated treaty-making under the UN as an integral part of its design. This meant inviting the very targets of the Malthusians &nbsp;to voluntarily subject themselves to the intended curbs—in growing crops, using forests and land, producing and using fossil fuels—essentially in all elements of modern life. This central, unresolved paradox has remained at the heart of the UNFCCC/IPCC process.<br /><br />When things kicked off (at Rio de Janeiro) in 1992, the only way to entice developing countries to participate in the UNFCCC was via &nbsp;(a) promises of a temporary reprieve and special permissions to continue using fossil fuels – the so-called principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities,’ and (b) dangling the twin carrots of technology transfer and financial aid to overcome the ravages of climate change.<br /><br />Developing countries like India and China, then utterly secure in their backwardness, were eager to accept these conditions. All one had to do was accept climate consensus formulations (‘the science’) to appear scientific, which was an attractive proposition to the global South. Once accepted the Rio template brought further benefits. They could band together in berating developed countries like the US and the UK for their ‘rampant consumerism,’ ‘capitalism,’ and ‘exploitation of resources.’ They could pretend to ‘care’ for ‘the environment.’ The ball of ’emission reduction’ was not yet in their court which made the moral posturing easier.<br /><br />To be fair, as poor nations lacked leverage, there were direct participatory pressures on developing countries. If they chose to keep away from the UNFCCC/COP negotiations, they could find themselves subject to mandatory rules made in their absence. &nbsp;The safety valve in all this was the knowledge that the US was neither about to transfer nuclear technology nor freely part with gobs of cash. The developed countries had their safety valves, too. For a good while, countries like Germany and Russia double-counted incidental large dips in their GDP toward the Kyoto protocol.<br /><br />In the US, the Senate proved to be an insurmountable barrier for climate activist legislation. Ironically, in climate circles, the knowledge/belief that neither India nor China would accept verifiable mandatory emission reduction targets has itself served as an inhibitory force. In other words, each party depends on the other to act in their self-interest in order to protect themselves from self-harm in the name of climate!<br /><br />Developed countries use ‘the science’ to pursue Malthusian dreams of their environmentalist cohorts. Developing countries pretend at believing in the science to play at being the global left. Skepticism at the whole charade drops between the cracks. This has been the climate story over the past 22 years – of pantomime fools dancing around a Gordian knot.<br /><br />There is, however, great danger even in play-acting in a Malthusian drama. At regular intervals, countries have found themselves paying a real price for the indulgence. The Climate Change Act in the UK is one such example. Written entirely by a college-level activist, the passage of the CCA exposed the weakness of ‘checks and balances’ in the UK and showed how trivial it was to being gamed.<br /><br />The EPA coal rules – the so-called ‘Clean Power Plan’ of the Obama administration in the US are a second example of calculated harm inflicted by a government on its own citizens.<br /><br />With Copenhagen, the UNFCCC/COP system entered an unstable phase. Here a hastily assembled alliance of countries BASIC fended off a binding agreement. &nbsp;But the wall of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ was crumbling fast with the growth of the Indian, Brazilian and Chinese economies. Post-Copenhagen, the United States went to work breaking down the BASIC alliance and by 2015 had largely succeeded. Stung by failure, climate activists were under pressure to show the world they could succeed. India did not want to be seen as a lone villain obstructing a treaty. The Paris agreement was born.<br /><br />With Paris, there were only two safety valves left standing. One, that developed countries would not actually cough up billions of dollars annually for ‘climate adaptation.’ Two, the US Senate or the political system would not ratify and implement an internationally imposed mandate of emissions reduction.<br /><br />It is at this juncture that Donald Trump has been elected. As Benny Peiser points in the Financial Post, if Trump carries out what he has proclaimed, there would be no free cash flowing toward developing countries in the guise of a climate fund. The Obama-era climate regulations could see themselves dismantled completely. These should provide enough excuses for developing countries—if they have the sense to recognize the opportunity—to disengage from economic self-harm and walk away from the precipice. &nbsp;The abysmal failure of the Indian position at Marrakech should serve as yet another example that moral posturing on the climate brings zero tangible benefits to countries.<br /><br />With Trump, and open climate skepticism, a global era of countries depending on others to act in self-interest in order to protect their own can finally come to a end. &nbsp;The chapter of fake collective global climate guilt can be closed.<br /><br /><a href="https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2016/11/22/the-climate-cat-and-mouse-game-and-trump/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Pipeline anarchy</b><br /><br /><i>Trump win fuels more rampant theft and destruction – and North Dakota citizens pay the price</i><br /><br />Paul Driessen<br /><br />Is this to be our future? Last week’s elections will soon end autocratic rule via executive fiat, the war on coal and hydrocarbons, IRS agents targeting conservative groups, government SWAT teams invading businesses and homes, and numerous other Abuses and Usurpations.<br /><br />But now we’re getting leftist anarchy and riots – with mindless, incoherent radicals smashing Portland storefronts, beating a Chicago motorist, and pummeling a ninth grade Woodside, CA Trump supporter.<br /><br />Amid it all, the epitome of nihilist, watermelon environmentalist, criminal, sore-loser fury is raging south of Bismarck, North Dakota, where thousands of “peaceful protesters” are camping illegally on federal and private lands, “venting their anger” over the Dakota Access Pipe Line.<br /><br />This $3.8-billion, 1,172-mile, state-of-the-art, 30-inch conduit will carry 470,000 barrels of oil daily from the state’s Bakken oil fields to Illinois. It’s about 85% complete, and the only segment left to be finished in North Dakota is a 1,000-foot passage under Lake Oahe, a manmade reservoir on the Missouri River. DAPL runs parallel to the existing Northern Border natural gas pipeline, through the same area and under the lake.<br /><br />The pipeline would replace 700 railroad tanker cars or 2,000 semi-trailer highway tanker trucks per day. It has created thousands of manufacturing and construction jobs. Bakken’s light, sweet crude oil replaces imports, fuels our vehicles, powers our economy, and provides raw materials for many essential products.<br /><br />Since it is underground, once it is installed and grasses are planted, the pipeline will be invisible except for occasional pumping stations, valves and other facilities. Modern metals, warning systems, automatic shutoff valves, 24/7/365 monitoring and other safeguards minimize the risk of spills – and nearly 140 revisions rerouted the DAPL around populated areas and sensitive ecological, archaeological, sacred and historic sites. The pipeline is 99.98% on private land and is covered by easements and other agreements.<br /><br />All these and other issues were addressed repeatedly and thoughtfully during a three-year, 389-meeting review and approval process. Landowners, communities, environmentalists and citizens provided input, and 55 Native American groups were consulted. Prominent in their refusal to participate were the Standing Rock Sioux, whose reservation is a half-mile from Lake Oahe, where the pipeline is set to cross.<br /><br />Only now are Standing Rock tribal leaders and members voicing opposition. Not surprisingly, they have been joined by Indians from across America, and by a motley assortment of activists, agitators and anarchists whom friendly media and politicians insist on praising as “peaceful resisters” against an industrial intrusion that “threatens” the climate, tribal culture, drinking water, historic artifacts and sacred sites. A United Nations “special rappoteur” on human rights claims law enforcement officials are using “violent” tactics against arrested protesters and subjecting them to “inhuman and degrading” conditions!<br /><br />These claims are “tonka chesli” – Lakota for BS.<br /><br />These thousands of militants are trespassing. They’ve wiped out forage that ranchers were depending on to feed their cattle and bison during fall and winter months. They blockade roads and rail lines, set fires to make passage impossible, and harass reporters who question their actions. One tried to shoot a deputy. They have burned bridges, destroyed millions of dollars of construction equipment, chased livestock until they lose their calves or die of exhaustion – and killed, maimed or eaten cattle, horses and domesticated buffalo. They’ve promised far more destructive actions, and even issued death threats against their critics.<br /><br />A favorite tactic employs “peaceful dissidents” and “prayer groups” to block and distract ranchers and sheriff’s deputies from an area, while others destroy nearby fence wire and posts. One rancher told me repairing just the fence on the ranch where they graze buffalo will cost at least $300,000 and weeks of hard work. The anarchists obviously don’t care about innocent people who are caught in the middle.<br /><br />Other ranchers’ lost forage and animals, time and fuel spent on repairs, and other expenses will cost well over $500,000. No one has offered any compensation, even though the militants have millions of dollars.<br /><br />Washington Times journalist Valerie Richardson reports that, as of November 1, the militants’ Sacred Stone camp alone raised $1.3 million for supplies on GoFundMe and $1.2 million on FundRazr for legal defense. The Red Warrior Camp quickly collected $142,000 via GoFundMe and $105,000 in legal defense cash on IndieGogo, even though the Standing Rock council is frustrated and wants them gone.<br /><br />Rumors run rampant that the “protesters” are also raking in bundles of welfare checks, plus “charitable and educational contributions” from “progressive” billionaires like Tom Steyer (coal), George Soros (currency speculation), Warren Buffett (railroads and tanker cars); outfits they fund, such as the Tides Foundation, 350.org, EarthJustice and Indigenous Environmental Network; and various Russian, Saudi and other foreign sources that would like to keep US oil and gas locked up.<br /><br />Perhaps the abundant cash will attract corporate and pro bono lawyers, legal foundations and attorneys general who can freeze the assets and pursue individual or joint and several liability claims, plus punitive damages, to compensate ranchers, other locals and companies – and dissuade future lawlessness.<br /><br />Last January, 26 peaceful ranchers who encamped on federal wildlife refuge property in Oregon were arrested, one was shot and killed, and the survivors were charged with, tried for (and found not guilty of) theft, conspiracy and weapons violations. Many wonder why these North Dakota militants and criminals are getting a free pass, glowing press coverage, and millions of dollars from crime-financing enablers.<br /><br />The nearly completed DAPL has to cross the river somewhere and will pose the same low pollution risks wherever it goes. But it will be built with the utmost care, with the best technologies and materials.<br /><br />So what is actually driving these destructive, vindictive, violent protests against this convenient “poster child” pipeline?<br /><br />* True-believers are obsessed with “dangerous manmade climate change” – to justify and obscure their real agenda: a new world economic order to replace capitalism, global wealth redistribution, and UN control of development, livelihoods and living standards, for rich, poor and emerging nations alike.<br /><br />* The “keep it in the ground” anti-hydrocarbon movement prefers blanketing the USA and planet with billions of solar panels, wind turbines and biofuel fields, to produce expensive, subsidized, unreliable energy – while killing birds, bats and other wildlife by the millions – rather than producing affordable energy-dense fossil fuels from holes in the ground, and transporting them by pipeline. (Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II supports much greater emphasis on renewable energy.)<br /><br />* Radical elements among Native Americans (and Canadian Indigenous Peoples) want to control the land, water, energy and lives of white people whose predecessors took their ancestral lands. Their feelings are understandable. But imagine the chaos this would cause and the precedent their success would set for Europe, Latin America, China, Hawaii, the Middle East and beyond, as PC politics rewrite history.<br /><br />* The anarchists think they have a right to vilify and void laws, processes, approvals and property rights – even threaten lives. 90% of those arrested have been out-of-state agitators, and many get paid to raise hell.<br /><br />* And of course, they are outraged, inconsolable and defiant over Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump.<br /><br />They have no grasp of basic facts. Pipelines are safer than trucks or rail cars. This low-pressure line is state-of-the-art and will be monitored constantly and inspected regularly. High-cost renewable energy impacts small businesses, hospitals, blue-collar workers, and poor and minority families the hardest. And President Obama’s refusal to accept a court order or speak out against the crime is fueling the insanity.<br /><br />Hopefully, President Trump, governors, AGs, other elected officials, and publicly spirited lawyers and judges will do the right thing: shut these anarchists down, compensate ranchers and other victims – and award punitive damages against the Big Green operatives who have caused so much damage, under the guise of freedom of speech (for them only) and phony concern for Native culture and the environment.<br /><br />Then finish the pipeline, renew our focus on energy we can count on, and put America back to work.<br /><br /><i>Via email</i><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-33309663141795379952016-11-23T01:34:00.001+13:002016-11-23T01:35:23.636+13:00<br /><br /><b>RSS – Satellite Temperatures Back to Where they Were Before El Nino</b><br /><br />RSS is one of the two satellite temperature data sets. They show the EL Nino “peak”.<br /><br />I wonder how far the La Nina will drop?<br /><br /><img height=400 width=600 src="https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/capture1.jpg" /><br /><br /><a href="https://sunshinehours.net/2016/11/18/rss-satellite-temperatures-back-to-where-they-were-before-el-nino/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Carbon is not the enemy</b><br /><br /><i>Nature has published a provocative essay entitled Carbon is not the enemy (full text available online). &nbsp;Excerpts:</i><br /><br />Carbon has a bad name.<br /><br />But carbon — the element — is not the enemy. Climate change is the result of breakdowns in the carbon cycle caused by us: it is a design failure. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere make airborne carbon a material in the wrong place, at the wrong dose and for the wrong duration.<br /><br />Rather than declare war on carbon emissions, we can work with carbon in all its forms. To enable a new relationship with carbon, I propose a new language — living, durable and fugitive — to define ways in which carbon can be used safely, productively and profitably. Aspirational and clear, it signals positive intentions, enjoining us to do more good rather than simply be less bad.<br /><br />It is easy to lose one’s way in the climate conversation. Few of the terms are clearly defined or understood. Take ‘carbon neutral’. The European Union considers electricity generated by burning wood as carbon neutral — as if it releases no CO2 at all. Their carbon neutrality relies problematically on the growth and replacement of forests that will demand decades to centuries of committed management.<br /><br />Such terms highlight a confusion about the qualities and value of CO2. In the United States, the gas is classified as a commodity by the Bureau of Land Management, a pollutant by the Environmental Protection Agency and as a financial instrument by the Chicago Climate Exchange.<br /><br />A new language of carbon recognizes the material and quality of carbon so that we can imagine and implement new ways forward. It identifies three categories of carbon — living, durable and fugitive — and a characteristic of a subset of the three, called working carbon. It also identifies three strategies related to carbon management and climate change — carbon positive, carbon neutral and carbon negative.<br /><br />Carbon is at the heart of soil health. In healthy ecosystems, when plants convert CO2 into carbon-based sugars — liquid carbon — some flows to shoots, leaves and flowers. The rest nourishes the soil food web, flowing from the roots of plants to communities of soil microbes. In exchange, the microbes share minerals and micronutrients that are essential to plants’ health. Drawn into the leaves of plants, micronutrients increase the rate of photosynthesis, driving new growth, which yields more liquid carbon for the microbes and more micronutrients for the fungi and the plants. Below ground, liquid carbon moves through the food web, where it is transformed into soil carbon — rich, stable and life-giving. This organic matter also gives soil a sponge-like structure, which improves its fertility and its ability to hold and filter water.<br /><br />This is how a healthy carbon cycle supports life. This flow kept carbon in the right place in the right concentration, tempered the global climate, fuelled growth and nourished the evolution of human societies for 10,000 years.<br /><br />Let’s keep those carbon bridges open on all landscapes — rural and urban. Let’s use carbon from the atmosphere to fuel biological processes, build soil carbon and reverse climate change. Let’s adopt regenerative farming and urban-design practices to increase photosynthetic capacity, enhance biological activity, build urban food systems, and cultivate closed loops of carbon nutrients. Let’s turn sewage-treatment plants into fertilizer factories. Let’s recognize carbon as an asset and the life-giving carbon cycle as a model for human designs.<br /><br />&nbsp;More <a href="https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/19/carbon-is-not-the-enemy/">HERE</a> &nbsp;(See the original for links, graphics etc.)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>10,000 fly in for doomed climate talks</b><br /><br />More than 10,000 people are flying to Marrakesh for a UN climate change conference despite officials admitting that they will make little or no progress on key issues.<br /><br />The two-week meeting, which begins in the Moroccan city on Monday, was declared as the “conference of action”, where 195 countries were supposed to reveal how they will fulfil pledges made a year ago to cut their emissions. Instead, they are likely to agree to suspend talks until 2018.<br /><br />Previous conferences have produced communiqués with grand titles named after their location, including last year’s Paris Agreement. A UK government source said: “Will there be a Marrakesh Something? There will have to be a decision that basically says we agree to reconvene with a date.”<br /><br />However, delegates will be able to stay busy thanks to a Michelin guide to the conference supplied by the UN. It lists top hotels, “beauty and wellness spas”, as well as the best beaches.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/10-000-fly-in-for-doomed-climate-talks-5ks370pmf">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Trump Should Let Senate Kill Obama’s Paris Climate Treaty</b><br /><br />By Phil Kerpen<br /><br />When is a treaty not a treaty? &nbsp;According to the Obama administration, whenever the president says so. &nbsp;This claim is especially dubious with respect to the Paris agreement on global warming, which as Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has shown, is more ambitious than predecessor agreements that were universally accepted to be treaties.<br /><br />Surely if President Obama possesses an asserted authority to declare an agreement identical in form and more ambitious in substance than previous treaties to be a non-treaty, then President Trump will have the authority to reach the opposite, more plausible conclusion.<br /><br />There is little doubt that the Trump administration will reject the Paris agreement, but the option of properly recognizing it as a treaty and allowing the Senate to formally reject it has several advantages.<br /><br />First, it prevents the dangerous precedent of a president binding the country and his successor to international commitments without the broad support that the Constitution requires through the advice and consent process. &nbsp;Secondly, it sidesteps the question of whether the withdrawal provision of the Paris treaty itself forces us to wait four years before withdrawal is effective. &nbsp;Finally, it exposes as false the talking point that skepticism of the Paris agreement is outside the political mainstream.<br /><br />John Kerry, who infamously declared global warming a greater threat to the United States than terrorism, gave his final speech on the subject this week to the UN functionaries in Marrakech, Morocco. He offered a soothing fantasy.<br /><br />“No one should doubt the overwhelming majority of the citizens of the United States who know climate change is happening and who are determined to keep our commitments that were made in Paris,” Kerry said to applause.<br /><br />Last week’s election emphatically showed the opposite. &nbsp; The Midwest delivered the White House to Trump, who dominated among the working class voters who care far more about how much they are paying to fill up the gas tank and keep their lights on than they do about what United Nations computer models predict about the climate in decades or centuries – the results of which show minimal change anyway. &nbsp;Appalachian voters in particular preferred Trump in a stunning 469 of 490 counties.<br /><br />The Paris treaty is a magnificent example of the bad deals made for America that ultimately paved Donald Trump’s path to the White House.<br /><br />Specifically, the Paris treaty effectively bans coal-fired power plants in the United States while China has 368 coal plants under construction and over 800 in the planning stage. &nbsp;India's coal production under the deal is projected to double by 2020. &nbsp;Even Europe is allowed to build coal plants. &nbsp;It forces Americans to endure painful cuts while the rest of the world continues with business as usual.<br /><br />Even worse, American taxpayers will be forced to cough up $100 billion in climate-related foreign aid by 2020, with the promise of much more to follow.<br /><br />Which brings us to the Senate.<br /><br />Trump can submit the Paris treaty in full confidence that it will not pass with the required 67 votes in a body that has just 48 Democrats. &nbsp;The interesting question: how low can the vote total for this rotten deal go?<br /><br />With ten Senate Democrats sitting in states Trump carried, many senators will be forced to choose between their green billionaire donors out in San Francisco and the voters they need to survive in 2018. &nbsp;And when the Senate votes the Paris treaty down, it will send an emphatic message to the world that – despite what John Kerry told his friends in Marrakech – the American people are with Trump on this, not Obama.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/phil-kerpen/trump-should-let-senate-kill-obamas-paris-climate-treaty">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Obama rescinds Arctic offshore drilling proposal</b><br /><br />President Obama has rescinded a proposal to allow new oil and natural gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean as part of a five-year plan for leasing released on Friday.<br /><br />Obama's move takes drilling rights sales off the table through 2022.<br /><br />The Interior Department had previously proposed limited drilling rights sales to the Beaufort and Chukchi seas north of Alaska, where there has never been oil and natural gas production from traditional mobile drilling rigs.<br /><br />But officials, citing environmental concerns and low industry interest, rescinded that proposal on Friday in releasing the new plan.<br /><br />The decision all but bans Arctic drilling for that time period, since oil companies have let almost all of their leases in the Arctic expire or have surrendered them.<br /><br />It’s a major win for environmentalists, Alaska Natives and others who feared the environmental consequences of opening the frigid, unforgiving Arctic waters to drilling, especially in the case of a spill.<br /><br />President-elect Donald Trump could seek to amend the five-year drilling plan to add more sales. But he would have to go through a long regulatory process to do so, potentially taking years, and could encounter problems like President George W. Bush did when he attempted a similar strategy.<br /><br />Trump pledged during the campaign to open vast areas of public land and water to fossil fuel production that had not been allowed before.<br /><br />Since the plan is being released late in Obama’s time in office, congressional Republicans could try legislatively to overturn the plan or open the Arctic or Atlantic to drilling.<br /><br />The oil industry and its allies have pushed Obama to keep Arctic drilling on the table and let market forces decide if drilling should happen in the Arctic seas.<br /><br />“Given the unique and challenging Arctic environment and industry’s declining interest in the area, foregoing lease sales in the Arctic is the right path forward,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in a statement.<br /><br />The final version of the five-year offshore leasing plan released Friday allows up to 10 drilling rights sales in the Gulf of Mexico, the country’s main offshore drilling areas, and up to one plan in the Cook Inlet in south-central Alaska.<br /><br />“The plan focuses lease sales in the best places — those with the highest resource potential, lowest conflict, and established infrastructure — and removes regions that are simply not right to lease,” Jewell said.<br /><br />“The proposal makes available more than 70 percent of the economically recoverable resources, which is ample opportunity for oil and gas development to meet the nation’s energy needs,” said Abigail Ross Hopper, director of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.<br /><br />Obama in March took Atlantic Ocean drilling out of consideration, after floating a small set of drilling rights sales off the coasts of an area between Virginia and Georgia.<br /><br />Despite the possibility of the plan being overturned, Democrats and greens cheered Obama’s decision.<br /><br />“I appreciate that the Interior Department considered the greater risk posed while operating in dynamic and challenging offshore environments in choosing to remove future leasing in the Arctic,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.<br /><br />“We need to ensure that we can drill safely and respond to spills before exploration moves forward in ecologically sensitive areas,” she said.<br /><br />Despite the possibility of the plan being overturned, greens cheered Obama’s decision. “Oceana applauds President Obama and Secretary Jewell for their leadership in protecting our coasts from dirty and dangerous offshore drilling,” Jacqueline Savitz, senior vice president for the United States at Oceana, said in a statement.<br /><br />“Today’s announcement demonstrates a commitment to prioritizing common sense, economics and science ahead of industry favoritism and politics as usual,” she said.<br /><br />Republicans and the oil industry slammed Obama.<br /><br />“The Arctic has become nothing more than a prop for the president’s legacy,” said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah).<br /><br />“Today’s plan will chart a path of energy dependency for decades to come,” he said. “We should be building on our position as a global energy leader, but we are punting it to Russia as Obama appeases the environmentalists pulling his strings.”<br /><br />American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard called the move “a short-sighted decision that ignores America’s long-term energy security needs,” and said he is hopeful that Trump would reverse Obama’s removal of the Arctic.<br /><br />Greens had asked Obama to go further, and invoke a rarely-used legal provision in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act that they say would allow him to permanently protect the Arctic and Atlantic from drilling.<br /><br />The Friday release did not include any use of that provision.<br /><br />Interior referred questions about that proposal to the White House, which said it had no news Friday on the request.<br /><br /><a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/306764-obama-takes-new-arctic-offshore-drilling-off-the-table">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-33808373861395633752016-11-22T01:35:00.001+13:002016-11-22T01:36:06.153+13:00<br /><b>7 Ways Climate Change Is Impacting Your Life Right Now (Even If You Haven't Noticed Them)</b><br /><br /><i>Just the first part below of an intellectually impoverished article by &nbsp;BECCA SCHUH, a materially impoverished artist. &nbsp;Why are so many artists these days Leftist lamebrains? &nbsp;Is it because most artists have to be lamebrains to do what they do? &nbsp;Some pretty strange things pass as art these days<br /><br />She references below the increasing frequency of hurricanes and storms but offers no statistics to back up her assertion that they are increasing. &nbsp;Official statistics show that <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/#667954d17c5c">the frequency of hurricanes has &nbsp;markedly DECLINED</a> in recent years but what does that matter when you have got virtue on your side? <br /><br />Typical Warmist crap. &nbsp;I could fisk the rest of her article but that would be unkind to dumb animals<br /><br /><br /></i>By this point, you probably know that climate change is a very real and persistent threat to our future quality of life — a 2016 Gallup poll found that 64 percent of Americans described themselves as "worried a great deal" or "fair amount" about global warming; it also found that 41 percent of us felt global warming will become a "serious threat" to our lives or way of life, and only 10 percent of Americans believing that the effects of global warming will never make an impact in our lives. Despite all this, it can be hard to connect the scientific facts, or the news from far regions of the world, to our daily lives — but as people with power continue to deny the impact of climate change (exemplified by the news that President-elect Trump has picked climate change skeptic Myron Ebell to lead his EPA transition team), being aware of the real impact of climate change has become more important than ever. And we don't have to wait to see what that impact is — with each passing month, climate change affects more things about how we operate, from the minutiae of daily living to our long-term plans.<br /><br />1. Hurricanes Are Increasingly Severe<br /><br />Recently, Hurricane Matthew joined the ranks of recent hurricanes like Sandy and Katrina that reached new highs of catastrophe. Destructive hurricanes are not a new phenomenon in the Southeastern United States, and no individual hurricane can be directly attributed to climate change, but the increasing frequency and severity of these storms is directly correlated to global warming — as temperatures rise from the surplus of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the ocean heats up, and warm tropical waters create more powerful hurricanes.<br /><br />Scientists predict that global warming will also cause increased rainfall in the eye of hurricanes, which will increase flooding — which, in turn, creates some of the most drastic long term effects on daily life after a hurricane, from damaged roads to loss of property. For people who live in areas that are susceptible to hurricanes, this means a great deal of future planning for protecting assets and loved ones. However, Southern coastal states aren't the only ones that have to worry about the severe weather of climate change.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.bustle.com/articles/190212-7-ways-climate-change-is-impacting-your-life-right-now-even-if-you-havent-noticed-them">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Donald Trump expected to slash Nasa's climate change budget </b><br /><br />US President-elect Donald Trump is set to slash Nasa's budget for monitoring climate change and instead set a goal of sending humans to the edge of the solar system by the end of the century, and possibly back to the moon.<br /><br />Mr Trump, who has called climate change a "Chinese hoax", is believed to want to focus the agency on far-reaching, big banner goals in deep space rather than "Earth-centric climate change spending".<br /><br />According to Bob Walker, who has advised Mr Trump on space policy, Nasa has been reduced to "a logistics agency concentrating on space station resupply and politically correct environmental monitoring".<br /><br />Mr Walker, a former congressman who chaired President George W. Bush's Commission on the Future of the US Aerospace Industry, told The Telegraph: "We would start by having a stretch goal of exploring the entire solar system by the end of the century.<br /><br />"You stretch your technology experts and create technologies that wouldn't otherwise be needed. I think aspirational goals are a good thing. Fifty years ago it was the ability to go to the moon."<br /><br />This year Nasa's Earth Science Division received $1.92 billion in funding, up nearly 30 per cent from the previous year.<br /><br />Its funding has gone up 50 per cent under President Barack Obama. At the same time Mr Obama proposed cutting support for deep space exploration by $840 million next year.<br /><br />The money for earth sciences goes to projects like the Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System, a constellation of eight satellites intended to monitor surface wind speed on the oceans.<br /><br />Speaking hours after Mr Trump's election win Thomas Zurbuchen, Nasa's science administrator, defended the work. He said: “Nasa's work on Earth science is making a difference in people’s lives all around the world every day. Earth science helps save lives."<br /><br />But Republicans have complained the agency that sent men to the moon should not be spending billions of dollars on "predicting the weather".<br /><br /><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/20/donald-trump-expected-to-slash-nasas-climate-change-budget-in-fa/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>An 850-Year hydroclimatic history of Northwestern China reveals no trend suggestive of a CO2 influence</b><br />&nbsp;<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />Paper Reviewed: Gou, X., Gao, L., Deng, Y., Chen, F., Yang, M. and Still, C. 2015. An 850-year tree-ring-based reconstruction of drought history in the western Qilian Mountains of northwestern China. International Journal of Climatology 35: 3308-3319.<br /><br />In explaining the rationale for their work, Gou et al. (2015) state that it is necessary to produce long-term drought reconstructions "for the purposes of accurately understanding current as well as predicting future hydroclimatic changes." This is because long-term records can provide historical context and shed critical light on important climate forcings, feedbacks and processes, as well as provide a means to test climate model projections that forecast changes due to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2. Against this backdrop, and hoping to fill a regional data void, Gou et al. thus set out to reconstruct the hydroclimatic history of the western Qilian Mountains of northwestern China.<br /><br />Their proxy record originated from juniper tree-ring cores, which after proper analysis and calibration, produced an 850-year (AD 1161-2010) reconstruction of drought (May-July self-calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index). As shown in the figure below (and confirmed by spectral analysis), there are several interannual, inter-decadal and centennial cycles present in the record, but no trend in the data that would suggest an obvious recent influence from greenhouse gases. In contrast, however, the scientists report that three periods of mega-drought (AD 1260s-1340s, 1430s-1540s and 1640s-1740s) "corresponded to the Wolf, Spörer and Maunder solar activity minimum periods," while adding that "results of the multi-tape method analysis and wavelet analysis further confirmed the relationship between hydroclimate variability and solar activity forcing."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.co2science.org/articles/V19/nov/a11.php">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Global Warming: Policy Hoax versus Dodgy Science</b><br /><br />by Dr. Roy W. Spencer<br /><br />In the early 1990s I was visiting the White House Science Advisor, Sir Prof. Dr. Robert Watson, who was pontificating on how we had successfully regulated Freon to solve the ozone depletion problem, and now the next goal was to regulate carbon dioxide, which at that time was believed to be the sole cause of global warming.<br /><br />I was a little amazed at this cart-before-the-horse approach. It really seemed to me that the policy goal was being set in stone, and now the newly-formed United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had the rather shady task of generating the science that would support the policy.<br /><br />Now, 25 years later, public concern over global warming (aka climate change) is at an all-time low remains at the bottom of the list of environmental concerns.<br /><br />Why is that? Maybe because people don’t see its effects in their daily lives.<br /><br />1) By all objective measures, severe weather hasn’t gotten worse.<br /><br />2) Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be.<br /><br />3) CO2 is necessary for life on Earth. It has taken humanity 100 years of fossil fuel use to increase the atmospheric CO2 content from 3 parts to 4 parts per 10,000. (Please don’t compare our CO2 problem to Venus, which has 230,000 times as much CO2 as our atmosphere).<br /><br />4) The extra CO2 is now being credited with causing global greening.<br /><br />5) Despite handwringing over the agricultural impacts of climate change, current yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat are at record highs.<br /><br />As an example of the disconnect between reality and the climate models which are being relied upon to guide energy policy, here are the yearly growing season average temperatures in the U.S 12-state corn belt (official NOAA data), compared to the average of the climate model projections used by the IPCC:<br /><br /><img src="http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Corn-belt-temp-JJA-thru-2016-vs-42-CMIP5-models-1-550x330.jpg" /><br /><br />Yes, there has been some recent warming. But so what? What is its cause? Is it unusual compared to previous centuries? Is it necessarily a bad thing? And, most important from a policy perspective, What can we do about it anyway?<br /><br />The Policy Hoax of Global Warming<br /><br />Rush Limbaugh and I have had a good-natured mini-disagreement over his characterization of global warming as a “hoax”. President-elect Trump has also used the “hoax” term.<br /><br />I would like to offer my perspective on the ways in which global warming is indeed a “hoax”, but also a legitimate subject of scientific study.<br /><br />While it might sound cynical, global warming has been used politically in order for governments to gain control over the private sector. Bob Watson’s view was just one indication of this. As a former government employee, I can attest to the continuing angst civil servants have over remaining relevant to the taxpayers who pay their salaries, so there is a continuing desire to increase the role of government in our daily lives.<br /><br />In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given a legitimate mandate to clean up our air and water. I remember the pollution crises we were experiencing in the 1960s. But as those problems were solved, the EPA found itself in the precarious position of possibly outliving its usefulness.<br /><br />So, the EPA embarked on a mission of ever-increasing levels of regulation. Any manmade substance that had any evidence of being harmful in large concentrations was a target for regulation. I was at a Carolina Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA) meeting years ago where an EPA employee stated to the group that “we must never stop making the environment cleaner” (or something to that effect).<br /><br />There were gasps from the audience.<br /><br />You see, there is a legitimate role of the EPA to regulate clearly dangerous or harmful levels of manmade pollutants.<br /><br />But it is not physically possible to make our environment 100% clean.<br /><br />As we try to make the environment ever cleaner, the cost goes up dramatically. You can make your house 90% cleaner relatively easily, but making it 99% cleaner will take much more effort.<br /><br />As any economist will tell you, money you spend on one thing is not available for other things, like health care. So, the risk of over-regulating pollution is that you end up killing more people than you save, because if there is one thing we know kills millions of people every year, it is poverty.<br /><br />Global warming has become a reason for government to institute policies, whether they be a carbon tax or whatever, using a regulatory mechanism which the public would never agree to if they knew (1) how much it will cost them in reduced prosperity, and (2) how little effect it will have on the climate system.<br /><br />So, the policy prescription does indeed become a hoax, because the public is being misled into believing that their actions are going to somehow make the climate “better”.<br /><br />Even using the IPCC’s (and thus the EPA’s) numbers, there is nothing we can do energy policy-wise that will have any measurable effect on global temperatures.<br /><br />In this regard, politicians using global warming as a policy tool to solve a perceived problem is indeed a hoax. The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources.<br /><br />Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/11/global-warming-policy-hoax-versus-dodgy-science/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Australia's Senator Roberts was right about "adjusted" temperature data in Greenland</b><br /><br /><i>Shifty Peter, official Greenie writer for the Fairfax press, has written below that Senator Roberts got it wrong in claiming that NASA/GISS concealed high temperatures in Iceland during the late 30's and early 40s.<br /><br />But what is the proof Roberts got it wrong? &nbsp;There is none. &nbsp;All that has happened is that the head of NASA/GISS has asserted that the adjustments were reasonable and reflrected reality. &nbsp;But he would say that, wouldn't he? &nbsp;Is he going to admit to being a fraud? Given the chronic mendacity of the Green/Left, his word means nothing.<br /><br />But the NASA head is given some support from the head of historic Icelandic meteorolgy, Trausti Jónsson.<br /><br />Problem: <a href="http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/icelandic-met-office-sells-out-to-gavin/">A few years ago the same Trausti Jónsson energetically condemned the NASA/GISS adjustments</a>. &nbsp;Given the pressures put on climate scientists by the Warmist establishment, it seems clear that Trausti Jónsson has now been bullied into supporting the NASA/GISS fraud.<br /><br />Additionally, news reports from the late '30s reported ferocious heating in the Arctic. &nbsp;No wonder Warmists "adjusted" it to non-existence.<br /><br /><img src="http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Cp0FPw1VYAECaku-3-2.jpg" /><br /><br />All of which tends to show that Senator Roberts was right and we are up against crooked scientists when we deal with Warmists<br /><br /></i><br />A senior NASA official has taken the extraordinary step of personally rejecting the claims of One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts that the agency had falsified key data to exaggerate warming in the Arctic.<br /><br />Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Senator Roberts he was "mistaken" in his assertion that the US agency had "removed" Arctic data to mask warming in the 1940s.<br /><br />"You appear to hold a number of misconceptions which I am happy to clarify at this time," Dr Schmidt told Senator Roberts in letters and emails obtained by Fairfax Media. "The claim that GISS has 'removed the 1940s warmth' in the Arctic is not correct."<br /><br />In his letter to NASA dated November 14, Senator Roberts explained his interest in the agency's temperature calculations, saying they had "influenced" the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's warnings on global warming that in turn had informed Australian government policy.<br /><br />Iceland weighs in<br /><br />"In Australia, we have considerable concern about temperature adjustments made by NASA over many years," Senator Roberts wrote, including charts from Icelandic stations at Vestmannaeyjar and Teigarhorn.<br /><br />"In dropping the temperatures for the early period, the [Arctic] warmth for the 1930s and 1940s appears to have been removed," he said. "What is your specific reason for doing this?"<br /><br />In an email, Truasti Jonsoon, senior meteorologist with a specialty in historical climatology at the Icelandic Meteorological Office, told Senator Roberts that the temperature "adjustments" are "quite sound".<br /><br />"During this early period there was a large daytime bias in the temperature data from Iceland as presented in this publication," which accounted for much of the "discrepancy" at Teigarhorn and less so at Vestmannaeyjar, Mr Jonsoon said.<br /><br />For the latter station, it was relocated in October 1921 to a higher elevation. "Comparative measurements at both sites have shown that the later location is about 0.7 degrees Celsius colder than the former – this relocation has to be 'adjusted' for," he said.<br /><br />"I assure you that these adjustments are absolutely necessary and well founded although the finer details of the resulting series shown in your letter differ slightly from my own version," he told Senator Roberts.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/nasa-chief-slaps-down-climate-sceptic-senator-malcolm-roberts-you-hold-a-number-of-misconceptions-20161120-gstp0y.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-3379129536715523282016-11-21T01:26:00.001+13:002016-11-21T01:30:16.083+13:00<br /><br /><b>Warmist fanatic Bill McKibben on Trump</b><br /><br /><i>In the excerpt below, he makes assertions that are unreferenced and unargued for and ignores large facts that don't suit him. Take the following assertion: "This year has been the hottest year recorded in modern history, smashing the record set in 2015"<br /><br />There's some small truth in that but it's what McKibben "forgets" to say that matters. &nbsp;He forgets to say that CO2 levels did not match the warming. &nbsp;I quote fron the <a href="http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/">journal article appended below</a>:<br /><br />"For year 2015 alone, the growth in EFF [EFF = emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels] was approximately zero ... For 2016, preliminary data indicate the continuation of low growth in EFF"<br /><br />So the CAUSE of the warming is not as McKibben would have you believe. The 2015 warming was clearly NOT an effect of an anthropogenic CO2 rise -- because there was no CO2 rise. So his whole story is totally undermined. Even if we allow as real and warming-caused all the dire phenomena he lists, they are NOT caused by a CO2 rise. &nbsp;So restrictions on CO2 are irrelevant to the warming and Trump's actions will cause no harm.<br /></i><br /><br />President-elect Donald Trump has already begun to back off some of his promises: Maybe not all of Obamacare has to go. Maybe parts of his wall will actually be a fence. Maybe it’s okay to have some lobbyists running the government after all.<br /><br />But I fear he won’t shrink from the actions he has promised on climate change: withdrawing the United States from the Paris accord, ending President Obama’s Clean Power Plan and okaying every new fossil-fuel plan from the Keystone XL pipeline on down. He won’t back down because those are hard-to-hedge choices and because he’s surrounded by climate-change deniers and fossil-fuel insiders who will try to ensure that he keeps his word.<br /><br />So let’s be entirely clear about what those actions would represent: the biggest, most against-the-odds and most irrevocable bet any president has ever made about anything.<br /><br />It’s the biggest because of the stakes. This year has been the hottest year recorded in modern history, smashing the record set in 2015, which smashed the record set in 2014. The extra heat has begun to steadily raise sea levels, to the point where some coastal U.S. cities already flood at high tide even in calm weather. Global sea ice levels are at record lows, and the oceans are 30 percent more acidic. And that’s just so far. Virtually every scientific forecast says that without swift action in the next few years to cut carbon emissions, this crisis will grow to be catastrophic, with implications for everything from agriculture to national security that dwarf our other problems.....<br /><br />If you don’t think poor people should get subsidized medical care, that’s ugly, but it’s an opinion you’re entitled to hold. Science isn’t like that: The heat-trapping properties of the carbon dioxide molecule simply a reality. Which is why, even if we fail in our efforts to stop Trump from making his bet, it’s important for history to note what’s going on. One man is preparing to bet the future of the planet in a long-shot wager against physics.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-is-betting-against-all-odds-on-climate-change/2016/11/17/8f7bf4ee-acf4-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br />Global Carbon Budget 2016<br /><br />Corinne Le Quéré et al.<br /><br />Abstract.<br /><br />Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates and consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, respectively, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models. We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ, reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2006–2015), EFF was 9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.5 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. For year 2015 alone, the growth in EFF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, showing a slowdown in growth of these emissions compared to the average growth of 1.8 % yr−1 that took place during 2006–2015. Also, for 2015, ELUC was 1.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 6.3 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 1.9 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. GATM was higher in 2015 compared to the past decade (2006–2015), reflecting a smaller SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 399.4 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2015. For 2016, preliminary data indicate the continuation of low growth in EFF with +0.2 % (range of −1.0 to +1.8 %) based on national emissions projections for China and USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. In spite of the low growth of EFF in 2016, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 concentration is expected to be relatively high because of the persistence of the smaller residual terrestrial sink (SLAND) in response to El Niño conditions of 2015–2016. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2016, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach 565 ± 55 GtC (2075 ± 205 GtCO2) for 1870–2016, about 75 % from EFF and 25 % from ELUC. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis. Center(doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2016).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/">Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 605-649, 2016</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>NOAA September Temperature Fraud</b><br /><br />NOAA claimed record heat in numerous locations is September, like these ones in Africa and the Middle East.<br /><br /><img src="http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/201609_1-1.gif" height="400" width="600" /><br /><br />This is a remarkable feat, given that they don’t have any actual thermometers in those regions. In fact, NOAA doesn’t have any thermometers on about half of the land surface.<br /><br />Satellite temperatures showed that September was close to normal in those regions which NOAA declared to be record hot.<br /><br />The global surface temperature record is garbage. This is the 21st century, and it needs to be replaced by satellite temperatures which show little or no warming this century.<br /><br />More <a href="http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/noaa-september-temperature-fraud/">HERE</a> &nbsp;(See the original for links, graphics etc.)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Wipe the EPA entirely</b><br /><br />The $4-trillion-per-year federal government works incessantly against the private sector. Likely no wing is more pernicious than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).<br /><br />On his way to prison for defrauding taxpayers out of more than $1 million, former high-level EPA official Jon Beale said that while at the agency he was: “working on a ‘project’ examining ways to ‘modify the DNA of the capitalist system.’ He argued that environmental regulation was reaching its ‘limits’…so he began working on his plan.”<br /><br />Which, thankfully, was eventually scrapped. But how obnoxious is the EPA – and how much free time does it have – to even consider, let alone work on, such a plan?<br /><br />Idle bureaucrat hands are the Devil’s playground. There are more than 800,000 federal government employees – that the employer its own self deems “non-essential.” Get that? The Feds have hired almost a million people – they themselves say are totally superfluous.<br /><br />We have far too many bureaucrats – with nigh nothing to do. So they start looking for things to do – like trying to “modify the DNA of the capitalist system.”<br /><br />Rather than assigning them things to do, or allowing them to go on these regulatory spelunking forays – how about we scrap their gigs? And while we’re at it – the agencies in which they work? Because if these agencies green light these sorts of regulatory search-and-destroy missions, they have no productive work to do – and thus shouldn’t exist.<br /><br />President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly said he’d all-but-shutter the EPA: “‘Environmental Protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations. They’re making it impossible…’ (Fox News’ Chris) Wallace interjected, ‘Who’s going to protect the environment?’ ‘They – we’ll be fine with the environment,’ Trump replied. ‘We can leave a little bit, but you can’t destroy businesses.’”<br /><br />Trump, by the way, also wants to close the Department of Education: “‘I believe that we should be – you know, educating our children from Iowa, from New Hampshire, from South Carolina, from California, from New York. I think that it should be local education.’”<br /><br />Trump is, of course, absolutely right. And that local solution for education – is the same solution for the environment. Nigh all fifty states have some bureaucratic iteration of both Education and the EPA. So why are there completely redundant, fifty-first entities in Washington?<br /><br />Iowa’s version of the EPA and Hawaii’s version know how to handle their respective issues far better than does the bureaucracy in far-off DC. The fifty states can each tailor their policies to their very different climates, topographies and industries.<br /><br />DC’s EPA can only issue one-size-fits-all mandates – which never fit anyone anywhere. And these mandates have to be overreaching enough to consume and cover the biggest states – which of course crushes all the rest.<br /><br />Trump should thus realize – we don’t even need to “leave a little bit” of the federal EPA.<br /><br />Also because as happens with all things DC, the “little bit” you leave behind – will eventually grow back into the monstrosity with which we are currently afflicted. So end it – don’t mend it.<br /><br />All the while, the DC EPA continues to inexorably stray ever further from any tether to legislation passed by Congress. But one example is its repeated, vast unilateral expansions of its powers under the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) law. Courts have repeatedly rebuked the EPA – but why would bored bureaucrats allow either the law or the courts to rein them in? So they’ve expanded yet again – even further than ever before.<br /><br />Trump gets this too: “‘The President can go in and tell the director of the EPA to eliminate the Waters of the U.S. rules,’ he says. ‘We will get through the abuse of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, which is taking place through the EPA, and we will eliminate those abuses. We think the Waters of the U.S. is an enormous overreach, and it needs to be eliminated.’”<br /><br />Hundreds of millions of Americans will be thrilled. Farmers in particular will be ecstatic.<br /><br />President Trump should absolutely shut down these WOTUS abuses – but he shouldn’t stop there. He should shut down entirely the agency engaged in this obnoxiousness. The EPA absolutely needs to go. And, thankfully, it will be one of the easiest of all of them to close.<br /><br />Team Trump has brilliantly named Myron Ebell as leader of their EPA transition. Ebell is no fan of the EPA and its egregious assaults on the private sector. All the right anti-capitalism people loathe him.<br /><br />President-elect Trump should have Ebell transition the EPA – right out of existence.<br /><br />The nation, its people and its economy will all be dramatically better for it.<br /><br /><a href="http://conservativerepublicannews.com/2016/11/18/trump-has-repeatedly-flirted-with-ending-the-epa-he-absolutely-should/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>The Facts About the Dakota Access Pipeline That Protesters Don’t Want You to Know</b><br /><br />For more than three months, thousands of protesters, most of them from out of state, have illegally camped on federal land in Morton County, North Dakota, to oppose the construction of a legally permitted oil pipeline project that is 85 percent complete.<br /><br />The celebrities, political activists, and anti-oil extremists who are blocking the pipeline’s progress are doing so based on highly charged emotions rather than actual facts on the ground.<br /><br />This 1,172-mile Dakota Access pipeline will deliver as many as 570,000 barrels of oil a day from northwestern North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to connect to existing pipelines in Illinois. It will do this job far more safely than the current method of transporting it by 750 rail cars a day.<br /><br />The protesters say they object to the pipeline’s being close to the water intake of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. However, this should be of no concern as it will sit approximately 92 feet below the riverbed, with increased pipe thickness and control valves at both ends of the crossing to reduce the risk of an incident, which is already low.<br /><br />Just like the companies that run the 10 other fossil-fuel pipelines crossing the Missouri River upstream of Standing Rock, Energy Transfer Partners—the primary funder of this pipeline—is taking all necessary precautions to ensure that the pipeline does not leak.<br /><br />But even if there were a risk, Standing Rock will soon have a new water intake that is nearing completion much further downstream near Mobridge, South Dakota.<br /><br />From the outset of this process, Standing Rock Sioux leaders have refused to sit down and meet with either the Army Corps of Engineers or the pipeline company.<br /><br />The Army Corps consulted with 55 Native American tribes at least 389 times, after which they proposed 140 variations of the route to avoid culturally sensitive areas in North Dakota. The logical time for Standing Rock tribal leaders to share their concerns would have been at these meetings, not now when construction is already near completion.<br /><br />The original pipeline was always planned for south of Bismarck, despite false claims that it was originally planned for north of Bismarck and later moved, thus creating a greater environmental danger to the Standing Rock Sioux.<br /><br />The real reasons for not pursuing the northern route were that the pipeline would have affected an additional 165 acres of land, 48 extra miles of previously undisturbed field areas, and an additional 33 waterbodies.<br /><br />It would also have crossed zones marked by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration as “high consequence” areas, and would have been 11 miles longer than the preferred and current route.<br /><br />North Dakotans have respected the rights of these individuals to protest the pipeline, but they have gone beyond civil protesting.<br /><br />Though these protesters claim to be gathered for peaceful prayer and meditation, law enforcement has been forced to arrest more than 400 in response to several unlawful incidents, including trespassing on and damaging private land, chaining themselves to equipment, burning tires and fields, damaging cars and a bridge, harassing residents of nearby farms and ranches, and killing and butchering livestock. There was even at least one reported incident where gun shots were fired at police.<br /><br />The recent vandalization of graves in a Bismarck cemetery and the unconscionable graffiti marking on the North Dakota column at the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., are examples of how the protesters’ actions do not match their claims of peaceful demonstration.<br /><br />Equally disturbing is the meddling by the Obama administration in trying to block this legally permitted project through executive policymaking. This has encouraged more civil disobedience, threatened the safety of local residents, and placed an onerous financial burden on local law enforcement—with no offer of federal reimbursement for these increasing costs.<br /><br />All that remains for the pipeline project to be completed is for the Army Corps of Engineers to issue a final easement to cross the Missouri River at Lake Oahe. With no legal reason remaining to not issue it, I am confident the Trump administration will do what’s right if it’s not settled before President Donald Trump takes office.<br /><br />The simple fact is that our nation will continue to produce and consume oil, and pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to transport it. Legally permitted infrastructure projects must be allowed to proceed without threat of improper governmental meddling.<br /><br />The rule of law matters. We cannot allow lawless mobs to obstruct projects that have met all legal requirements to proceed.<br /><br /><a href="http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/17/the-facts-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-that-protesters-dont-want-you-to-know/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Global freezing: 15-year ice age predicted to hit in only 4 years as sun prepares to 'hibernate'</b><br /><br />The world could be facing a 15 year winter<br /><br />A 15-YEAR long mini ice age could be due to hit the Northern hemisphere in just FOUR years as the sun prepares for 'hibernation' - triggering a barrage of cataclysmic events.<br /><br />A team of experts have warned that huge seismic events, including volcanic eruptions, plunging global temperatures and destabilization of the Earth's crust will become more common after worrying changes to the surface of the Sun were recorded.<br /><br />It could take up to 15 years for solar activity to return to normal with extreme weather and freezing temperatures continuing until 2035.<br /><br />The warning will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 the world faces increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles.<br /><br />Solar activity, measured by the appearance of sun spots, has been declining at a greater rate than at any other time in history, it has emerged.<br /><br />The Sun is now without spots for the first time in five years after 21 days of minimal activity were observed through the course of 2016.<br /><br />Although spots reappeared sporadically during the summer, repeated slumps of no activity were recorded through the year.<br /><br />The trend has prompted scientists to warn that the world is hurtling towards a historic solar minimum event with output potentially dropping to an all-time low.<br /><br />The phenomena are thought to drive extreme cold weather in Europe, including Britain, Northern America and across the lower southern hemisphere affecting New Zealand and parts of South America.<br /><br />They have also been linked to major earthquakes in tremor hotspots igniting fears that major cities including Tokyo and Los Angeles could be facing the next 'big one'.<br /><br />It could take 15 years for solar activity to return to normal<br />Research by the The Space and Science Research Center in Florida revealed a strong link between low solar activity and seismic events.<br /><br />The study looked at volcanic activity between 1650 - 2009 and earthquake activity between 1700 - 2009 comparing it to sunspots records.<br /><br />It revealed a terrifying correlation between reduced solar activity and the largest seismic and volcanic events in recorded history.<br /><br />Researchers at Japan's Institute for Cosmic Ray Research concluded there is a link between global volcanic activity and solar activity lows.<br /><br />Study author Toshikazu Ebisuzaki said: "Volcanoes with silica-rich and highly viscous magma tend to produce violent explosive eruptions that result in disasters in local communities and that strongly affect the global environment.<br /><br />"We examined the timing of 11 eruptive events that produced silica-rich magma from four volcanoes in Japan (Mt. Fuji, Mt. Usu, Myojinsho, and Satsuma-Iwo-jima) over the past 306 years (from AD 1700 to AD 2005).<br /><br />"Nine of the 11 events occurred during inactive phases of solar magnetic activity (solar minimum), which is well indexed by the group sunspot number.<br /><br />"This strong association between eruption timing and the solar minimum is statistically significant to a confidence level of 96.7 per cent."<br /><br />The frequency of sunspots is expected to rapidly decline over the next four years reaching a minimum between 2019 and 2020.<br /><br />Solar expert Piers Corbyn of forecasting group WeatherAction warned the Earth faces another mini ice age with potentially devastating consequences. He said: "We are now in a decline of solar activity and are on course for a very quiet period. "This can cause a shift in the jet stream making it move further south and as a result it turns very cold in temperate latitudes including Europe, Britain and North America.<br /><br />"We are anticipating temperatures to drop leading to ocean water freezing and ice drifts washing up around the coasts in Europe - we expect the next mini ice age."<br /><br />He said the link between huge changes in solar activity and earthquakes is down to a reduction in the strength of magnetic fields around the Earth.<br /><br />Japan, America, the Philippines and quake prone regions of the Middle East and Asia are about to be put on high alert, he warned.<br /><br />He explained fewer solar flares associated with a minimum period reduce the magnetic pull over the surface of the Earth.<br /><br />This stops all movement of tectonic plates, even the frequent harmless shifts which go unnoticed, allowing huge pressure to build up underneath the Earths crust.<br /><br />The result, Mr Corbyn said, is much like a pressure cooker with any slightest movement triggering a massive earthquake.<br /><br />"Think of it like comparing two bags of sugar being filled," he said.<br /><br />"If you have one with a small hole in the bottom it is constantly emptying while more is being added so there is no overall effect.<br /><br />"The other has no hole so it gets fuller and fuller until eventually it bursts, this is the sort of thing we are taking about.<br /><br />"What we expect is fewer earthquakes overall, but more extremely severe ones in at risk regions, and this is very worrying. "Tokyo, Los Angeles and other big cities could all be looking at the next big one."<br /><br />Scientists predict the number of observed sun spots will continue to decline over the next few years in the run up to 2020. Eventually the 'blank period' will stretch into months triggering the start of the next Solar Minimum likely to last 15 years..<br /><br />It will mark the 24th cycle since 1755 when solar activity was first recorded and the link made to climate and changes in terrestrial conditions.<br /><br />In Britain, the main threat is of a repeat of the last significant solar minimum which triggered the infamous little ice age in the 1600s.<br /><br />The so-called maunder minimum saw exceptionally harsh winters ravage the UK and northern Europe and led to the River Thames freezing over.<br /><br />A Met Office-led study published last year claimed although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain could see cooler than average winters in years to come.<br /><br />A spokesman at the time said: "A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn't halt global warming.<br /><br />"Return of 'grand solar minimum' could affect European and eastern US winters."<br /><br />Solar physicist David Hathaway, of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Centre, added: "The solar minimum is coming, and it's coming sooner than we expected."<br /><br /><a href="https://www.sott.net/article/333965-Global-freezing-15-year-ice-age-predicted-to-hit-in-only-4-years-as-sun-prepares-to-hibernate">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-59307672554789641572016-11-20T01:36:00.002+13:002016-11-20T01:36:35.131+13:00<br /><br /><b>Pesky glaciers</b><br /><br />Something a reader sent me reminded me of something I had forgotten. &nbsp;He wrote:<br /><br /><i> A glacier is a river of ice flowing slowly to the sea, fed by the head waters due to a build up of pressure, the same as a river of liquid water. They even have currents and flow around boulders that will not break loose and the bottom and sides flow slower than the middle. &nbsp;A glacier that has receded is due to a lack of new moisture at the source. </i><br /><br />The central point in that is that glacial advance and retreat is primarily a function of precipitation. &nbsp;Which means that a lack of snowfall &nbsp;is what causes a glacier to shrink/retreat. &nbsp;Warmists, by contrast, regularly attribute glacial retreat to warming, completely ignoring the fact that glaciers around the world wax and wane all the time, even when temperatures are plateaued.<br /><br />And the really interesting thing about that is what causes fluctuations in snowfall. &nbsp;There are many local factors but if we &nbsp;are talking about global influences, what causes reduced snowfall is COOLING. &nbsp;A warming world evaporate more water off the oceans and that water vapor would fall again as rain/snow. Conversely, a cooler world would evaporate less ocean water, leading to reduced precipitation.<br /><br />Greenies rarely these days talk about melting glaciers except in the case of Greenland but next time you hear a Greenie talking about a shrinking glacier somewhere say to them: &nbsp;"So we are having global cooling now, are we?" &nbsp;It won't help your friendship, though. &nbsp;I was once on quite good terms with a man who had a solid scientific background when some shrinking glaciers came up in conversation. &nbsp;I started to explain to him the role of precipitation but he cut the conversation rather short and I have never heard from him again. &nbsp;Warmists are fragile souls. &nbsp;How sad is it that some simple scientific facts can upset someone!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club is having fun</b><br /><br />He is just fundraising but it helps to have a villain. &nbsp;So guess who got elected as the villain? &nbsp;We read:<br /><br /><i>Breaking: In an organized stunt, a lackey of Myron Ebell - the head of Trump's EPA transition - just ripped up a copy of the Paris Climate deal next to a cardboard cutout of Trump. These people are laughing about the future of our planet. We cannot let them win. Fight back. Make a membership donation</i><br /><br />Marc Morano seems peeved that he was not named. &nbsp;He was just a "lackey". &nbsp;He comments: "Tell Brune we are coming after the Sierra Club's nonprofit status .."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Green Elites, Trumped</b><br /><br /><i>Cautious praise from the WSJ</i><br /><br />The planet will benefit if the climate movement is purged of its rottenness.<br /><br />Hysterical, in both senses of the word, is the reaction of greens like Paul Krugman and the Sierra Club to last week’s election. “The planet is in danger,” fretted Tom Steyer, the California hedge funder who spends his billions trying to be popular with green voters.<br /><br />Uh huh. In fact, the climate will be the last indicator to notice any transition from Barack Obama to Donald Trump. That’s because—as climate warriors were only too happy to point out until a week ago—Mr. Obama’s own commitments weren’t going to make any noticeable dent in a putative CO2 problem.<br /><br />At most, Mr. Trump’s election will mean solar and wind have to compete more on their merits. So what?<br /><br />He wants to lift the Obama war on coal—but he won’t stop the epochal replacement of coal by cheap natural gas, with half the greenhouse emissions per BTU.<br /><br />He probably won’t even try to repeal an egregious taxpayer-funded rebate for wind and solar projects, because red states like this gimme too. But Republican state governments will continue to wind back subsidies that ordinary ratepayers pay through their electric bills so upscale homeowners can indulge themselves with solar.<br /><br />Even so, the price of solar technology will continue to drop; the lithium-ion revolution will continue to drive efficiency gains in batteries.<br /><br />Mr. Trump wants to spend on infrastructure, and the federal research establishment, a hotbed of battery enthusiasts, likely will benefit.<br /><br />In a deregulatory mood, he might well pick up an uncharacteristically useful initiative from the Obama administration. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission quietly is revisiting a scientifically dubious radiation risk standard that drives up the cost of nuclear power.<br /><br />What a Trump election will do is mostly dismantle a green gravy train powered by moral vanity that contributes nothing to the public welfare.<br /><br />A phenomenon like Trump, whatever its antecedents, is an opportunity—in this case to purge a rottenness that begins at the commanding heights. The New York Times last year published a feature entitled “short answers to the hard questions about climate change” that was notable solely for ignoring the hardest question of all: How much are human activities actually affecting the climate?<br /><br />This is the hardest question. It’s why we spend tens of billions collecting climate data and building computerized climate models. It’s why “climate sensitivity” remains the central problem of climate science, as lively and unresolved as it was 35 years ago.<br /><br />Happily, it only takes a crude, blunderbussy kind of instrument to shatter such a fragile smugness—and if Mr. Trump and the phenomenon he represents are anything, it’s crude and blunderbussy.<br /><br />As with any such shattering, the dividends will not be appropriated only by one party or political tendency.<br /><br />Democrats must know by now they are in a failing marriage. Wealthy investors like George Soros,Nat Simons and Mr. Steyer, who finance the party’s green agenda, have ridden the Dems into the ground, with nothing to show for their millions, and vice versa.<br /><br />On the contrary, the WikiLeaks release of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails only dramatizes what a liability they’ve become, demanding attacks on scientists and even loyal Democrats who don’t endorse their climate-disaster scenarios. Their anti-coal, anti-pipeline, anti-fracking stance especially hurts Dems with union households, which turned out in record numbers for Mr. Trump.<br /><br />It was always crazy to believe in an unprecedented act of global central planning to wean nations away from fossil fuels, but equally idiotic not to notice that our energy economy is ripe slowly to be transformed by technology anyway.<br /><br />One greenie who is beyond the need for handouts is Bill Gates, who has made himself non grata by saying the current vogue for subsidizing power sources that will always need subsidies is a joke—an admission of defeat.<br /><br />Honest warriors like Mr. Gates and retired NASA alarmist James Hansen insist real progress can’t be made without nuclear. Why haven’t others? Because the Tom Steyers and Bill McKibbens would sacrifice the planet 10 times over rather than no longer be fawned over at green confabs. That’s rottenness at work.<br /><br />There’s a reason today’s climate movement increasingly devotes its time and energy to persecuting heretics—because it’s the most efficient way to suppress reasoned examination of policies that cost taxpayers billions without producing any public benefit whatsoever.<br /><br />The theory and practice of climate advocacy, on one hand, has been thoroughly, irretrievably corrupted by self righteousness—blame Al Gore, that was his modus. Yet, on the other, it has allowed itself to become the agent of economic interests that can’t survive without pillaging middle-class taxpayers and energy users—exactly the kind of elitist cronyism that voters are sick of.<br /><br />Without attributing any special virtue to Mr. Trump, he represents a chance for a new start. He might even turn out to be good for the planet<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/green-elites-trumped-1479254147">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>The unhinged Steyer-funded CAP campaign against @RogerPielkeJr was a very great scandal</b><br /><br /><i>Pielke comments:</i><br /><br />I haven’t had a chance to update this blog with anything related to the surprise (to me at least) at finding myself the subject of an email in the John Podesta email leaks from Wikileaks. That email revealed that an organization that was fouinded and led by Podesta, the Center for American Progress, engaged in a successful effort to have me removed as a writer at 538, the “data journalism” site created by Nate Silver.<br /><br />The Boulder Daily Camera has a very good series of articles about the revelation that there was an organized political effort against me.<br /><br />The multi-year campaign against me by CAP was partially funded by billionaire Tom Steyer, and involved 7 writers at CAP who collectively wrote more than 160 articles about me, trashing my work and my reputation. Over the years, several of those writers moved on to new venues, including The Guardian, Vox and ClimateTruth.org where they continued their campaign focused on creating an evil, cartoon version of me and my research.<br /><br />Collectively, they were quite successful. The campaign ultimately led to me being investigated by a member of Congress and pushed out of the field.<br /><br />One example of CAP’s campaign involved a series of over-the-top protestations against a paper that I wrote in 2008 with climate scientist Tom Wigley and economist Chris Green. In it, we argued that the IPCC had baked in too much assumed decarbonization in its scenarios of future emissions and policies.<br /><br />CAP responded with multiple posts, such as the unhinged, “Why did Nature run Pielke’s pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense?” There were many more.<br /><br />I am happy to report that sometimes good science wins out in the end. Our paper has now been cited almost 250 times (Google Scholar). More importantly, our analysis now shows up in the scenarios being used for the 6th assessment of the IPCC. Here is a key figure from our paper (on the left) and a virtually identical one from the recent IPCC scenario paper<br /><br />It is not important to understand the details here (but if you’d like to, our paper is here in PDF), but it is abundantly clear that our analysis was the basis for that used by those who have created the next generation of IPCC scenarios. Our paper is not cited by the IPCC authors – that apparently would be a step too far, given how deeply the campaign of destruction against me has influenced how I am perceived.<br /><br />But no matter. The ideas that we first presented in 2008, trashed by those who for whatever reason were intent of a campaign of personal destruction, now show up in 2016 as being core to those of the IPCC.<br /><br />That is pretty sweet.<br /><br />More <a href="https://rogerpielkejr.com/2016/11/14/wikileaks-and-me/">HERE</a> &nbsp;(See the original for links, graphics etc.)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Three Climate Policy Executive Orders the President-Elect Should Repeal</b><br /><br />President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to “cancel immediately” all of President Obama’s “illegal and overreaching executive orders,” and he strongly opposes Obama’s climate agenda. Will Obama’s climate policy executive orders be among the first on Trump’s chopping block?<br /><br />Here are three prime targets for repeal, beginning with the most recent.<br /><br />* &nbsp; &nbsp;Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade (March 19, 2015). This order requires federal buildings to obtain at least 30 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2030. All new federal buildings constructed in that year must be “energy net-zero,” meaning their energy consumption must be “balanced by onsite renewable energy.” Also in 2030, 50 percent of all new passenger vehicles in agency fleets must be zero-emission and plug-in hybrid vehicles. To carry out those and many other requirements, agencies must establish “chief sustainability officers” to implement “green supply chain management” under the tutelage of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. In addition to using our tax dollars to expand the federal trough for green special interests, the order is a consciousness-raising exercise. If kept in place, it will help perpetuate climate-centric groupthink in federal agencies.<br />&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />* &nbsp; &nbsp;Climate Resilient International Development (September 23, 2014). “This order requires the integration of climate-resilience considerations into all United States international development work to the extent permitted by law.” The main problem here is that development is the best strategy for making poor countries more resilient, and affordable energy is critical to development. Elevating “climate-resilience considerations” too easily becomes an excuse to deny poor countries access to affordable energy, ignore the real causes of poverty (corruption, lack of strong property rights), and legitimize phony grievances against the fossil energy-rich United States.<br />&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />* &nbsp; &nbsp;Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change (November 1, 2013). This order requires federal agencies to promote “engaged and strong partnerships and information sharing at all levels of government” to help “safeguard our economy, infrastructure, environment, and natural resources” from climate change impacts. Agencies are to “support and encourage smarter, more climate-resilient investments by States, local communities, and tribes, including by providing incentives through agency guidance, grants, technical assistance, performance measures, safety considerations, and other programs, including in the context of infrastructure development.” In other words, the order directs agencies to recruit, indoctrinate, bankroll, and coordinate climate activists at all levels of government. Perhaps a better title for the order is “Mobilizing the Long March through the Institutions.”<br /><br /><a href="https://cei.org/blog/three-climate-policy-executive-orders-president-elect-should-repeal">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-31696886796822819932016-11-18T01:33:00.001+13:002016-11-18T01:34:46.350+13:00<br /><b>Greenland Blowing Away All Records For Ice Growth</b><br /><br />Greenland’s surface has been gaining about 3.5 billion tons of ice per day since the first of September. This is about 50% above normal.<br /><br /><img src="http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-Shot-2016-11-14-at-6.25.51-AM.png" height="400" width="600" /><br /><br />Meanwhile government funded <s>experts</s> fraudsters are telling the press that <a href="http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/20877/20160416/alert-greenlands-ice-now-melting-catastrophic-speed.htm">Greenland is melting at catastrophic speed</a><br /><br />One of the top priorities of the Trump administration should be to root those responsible for this fraud out of government.<br /><br /><a href="http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/greenland-blowing-away-all-records-for-ice-growth-2/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Job one for Trump: Dismantle EPA regulatory assault on economy</b><br /><br />President-elect Donald Trump must begin unraveling the Obama legacy immediately. As harmful regulations continue to cripple economic growth, rescinding EPA regulations on coal is the first necessary step for the Trump administration to get America back to work and end the big government policies Obama instituted.<br /><br />Since the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that agency has been able to regulate carbon emissions as “harmful pollutants” under the terms of the Clean Air Act.<br /><br />Under the Obama administration that is exactly what the EPA did with the 2009 Carbon Endangerment Finding. This rulemaking in turn has been used to justify the continual implementation of regulations that expand the agency’s power and wage a war on coal.<br /><br />The Trump administration must now begin rescinding these regulations under the terms of the Administrative Procedures Act, a process that could take up to two years. Best to get started now.<br /><br />Currently under the EPA’s regulations published at 80 Fed. Reg. 64,510 and 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662, the EPA has the ability regulate both existing and developing power plants for excessive carbon emissions. This overreach was granted by the Obama administration and has worked to make coal electricity uneconomical.<br /><br />By rescinding these regulations, Trump could provide a tangible opportunity for blue collar job growth in by beginning the rebuilding of the American coal industry.<br /><br />But this is only the start. President Obama did not only put in place regulations which cripple businesses and make coal uneconomical, he also put in place regulations which disempowered citizens and state government eager to push against the EPA’s interjection.<br /><br />Using sue and settle arrangements, environmental groups sue the EPA or local governments demanding to have issues addressed. To avoid further litigation, the parties settle the suit and the EPA is given permission to address the issue with newly expanded powers, even if previously the EPA had not jurisdiction or authority over the issue. Sue and settle provides them with new oversight.<br /><br />While the Obama administration has used sue and settle arrangements throughout the last 8 years to expand overreach, rescinding prior sue and settle arrangements under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act would prevent the EPA from continuing to destroy local employment opportunities. Stop it where it stands.<br /><br />This could be the first show of unity by the Trump administration and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) after a hard-fought campaign where Trump and McConnell did not always see eye to eye.<br /><br />Despite having control over both houses in Congress, Trump could face barriers to the implementation of his agenda with McConnell. At one point in the campaign Trump pegged McConnell as the “epitome of an establishment Republican.” However, now, with a narrow lead in the Senate, Trump must rely on McConnell to deliver his platform.<br /><br />While the two have argued on issues such as immigration reform, ending the Obama administration war on coal has been a pillar for the McConnell Senate. And surely Congress can act, by defunding harmful regulations. Where that is not possible or fails, rescinding regulations via the executive process is up to Trump.<br /><br />This is one area Trump will be able to work together with McConnell, making the most of Republican majorities in both houses of Congress the next two years.<br /><br />Trump gained the support from Americans left unemployed from the regulations of the Obama Administration placed on industry growth, now he can show them why his win was worth it, by dismantling the EPA assault on the U.S. economy and getting the job-creating engine back up and running.<br /><br />Through the rescinding and defunding of harmful regulations and the barring of sue and settle arrangements, Trump and Congress can rein in the EPA while promoting job growth and free enterprise; something the Obama administration could never accomplish.<br /><br /><a href="http://netrightdaily.com/2016/11/job-one-trump-dismantle-epa-regulatory-assault-economy/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Skeptics Thrown Out Of UN Climate Summit After Holding Pro-Trump Event</b><br /><br />Three global warming skeptics were thrown out of the United Nations (U.N.) summit in Morocco after holding a pro-Donald Trump event where one of them tore up a copy of the Paris climate agreement.<br /><br />“UN Security escorted three members of an Non-Governmental Organization called the Competitive Enterprise Institute off the premises today, and removed badges for the duration of the week, after an unregistered demonstration,” U.N. spokesman Nick Nuttall told The Daily Caller News Foundation.<br /><br />One of those skeptics was Marc Morano, the publisher of Climate Depot, who was tossed out of the Marrakech summit after shredding a copy of a climate deal signed by nearly 200 countries last year. Morano was taken off the premises and won’t be allowed back in, the U.N. said.<br /><br />Morano, wearing a red Trump hat, said “the delegates here seem to be in deep denial about President-elect Trump’s policies” before being escorted off the premises by security, according to ABC News.<br /><br />The Rebel Media, a conservative Canadian news site, snapped a photo of Morano being forcibly moved by U.N. security guards.<br /><br />Morano was holding an event near the U.N. summit’s media center that featured a giant poster of President-elect Trump behind him. Morano already made waves after publishing a lengthy report challenging the very foundation on which the U.N. summit was built: man-made global warming.<br /><br />The U.N. apparently thought his “unregistered” demonstration went too far.<br /><br />“Members of this NGO have attended previous UN climate conferences and there is a well-publicized code of conduct for NGOs,” Nuttall said. “This requires them to register a planned demonstration with UN security for approval. All peaceful demonstrations within the conference are approved and roughly 10-15 are happening every day at the Marrakesh conference. Approval is not based on the message demonstrators wish to send, political or otherwise, but on the safety of delegates. This is especially relevant with Heads of State still present on the premises.”<br /><br />“The UNFCCC is one of the most tolerant UN bodies in respect to permitting demonstrations at its conferences but we need demonstrators to respect this well-established code for their own safety and the safety of all participants,” Nuttall said.<br /><br />Morano’s event attracted a large crowd of reporters and photographers before being shut down.<br /><br />U.N. delegates are in Marrakech to hash out an implementation plan for the so-called Paris agreement that was ratified by enough countries to come into effect this year. But delegates were disheartened by Trump’s recent election win.<br /><br />President-elect Donald Trump vowed to “cancel” the Paris deal. Trump also promised to stop funding U.N. global warming programs, despite being called a “climate denier” by left-wing activists.<br /><br /><a href="http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/16/skeptics-thrown-out-of-un-climate-summit-after-holding-pro-trump-event/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>"PEAK" OIL? The USGS Just Found 20 Billion Barrels of Oil</b><br /><br /><i>Thanks in part to fracking</i><br /><br />In what seems to becoming a weekly occurrence, the oil industry just produced another stunning example of its ability to find new reserves in the 21st century. A new assessment of the so-called “Wolfcamp shale” formation near Midland, Texas estimates that the region contains some 20 billion barrels of crude and another 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids. Take that, “peak oil” doomsayers. The Texas Tribune reports:<br /><br />[The Wolfcamp shale estimation is] three times higher than the amount of recoverable crude the agency found in the Bakken-Three Forks region in the upper midwest in 2013, making it “the largest estimated continuous oil accumulation that USGS has assessed in the United States to date,” according to a statement.<br /><br />“The fact that this is the largest assessment of continuous oil we have ever done just goes to show that, even in areas that have produced billions of barrels of oil, there is still the potential to find billions more,” said Walter Guidroz, program coordinator for the USGS Energy Resources Program.<br /><br />The fact that the USGS is now—in 2016—making its largest-ever estimate of a single oil resource speaks volumes about the state of American energy security, and the speed at which our country’s oil landscape has changed over the past decade as a result of the shale revolution.<br /><br /><i>To be clear, without technological advances like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal well drilling—two practices that have only been deployed en masse over the past eight years or so—we wouldn’t be counting these 20 billion barrels of crude as recoverable.</i><br /><br />While OPEC struggles to stay afloat in a market where crude struggles to break $50 per barrel, U.S. shale producers are surprising analysts and petrostates alike with their ability to keep the oil flowing at these bargain prices. This resiliency can largely be put down to their relentlessly innovative spirit and the dogged pursuit of technological advances to help streamline drilling processes and bring breakeven costs down. But new technologies aren’t just keeping shale firms afloat, they’re also uncovering new reserves of oil and gas that will continue to buoy America’s position as a major energy supplier for years to come.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/11/16/the-usgs-just-found-20-billion-barrels-of-oil/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Thanks to shale, the US is flush with a record amount of natural gas— just in time for winter</b><br /><br />The United States has never entered a winter with more natural gas at the ready, according to the latest data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). During the warmer months of the year, countries pump drilled natural gas into storage, anticipating a cyclical spike in demand when temperatures start falling. As we head into those colder months now, the amount of natural gas in storage here in the United States has just hit an all-time high, as the EIA reports:<br /><br />Working natural gas in storage reached a record high of 4,017 billion cubic feet (Bcf) as of November 4, according to EIA’s latest Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report. Inventories have been relatively high throughout the year, surpassing previous five-year highs in 48 of the past 52 weeks…The injection season for natural gas storage typically runs from April through October, although net natural gas injections sometimes continue for several weeks during November. In fact, the previous record for natural gas storage was set at 4,009 Bcf for the week ending November 20, 2015.<br /><br />So what does this mean for American families looking to heat their homes with natural gas this winter? Well, as the EIA explains, that all depends on the weather:<br /><br />Based on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) winter forecast, EIA expects U.S. average household natural gas consumption to increase 8% this winter, with the largest increases in the Northeast and Midwest census regions. Under this scenario, EIA expects inventories to end the winter at slightly below 1,900 Bcf. However, temperatures so far this winter have consistently been at or above weekly average normal levels, and NOAA’s latest three-month temperature outlook forecasts that December–February temperatures will be higher than normal. In a scenario with temperatures 10% warmer than forecast, U.S. average household natural gas consumption would be 1% lower this winter compared to last winter, with inventories at winter’s end near 2,300 Bcf.<br /><br />But while the exact rate at which households and businesses consume natural gas in the United States this winter remains to be seen, we do know that we’ve never been in a better position with respect to natural gas. This abundance isn’t just a boon to energy security, it also corresponds to cheaper prices, a development that is especially helpful for poorer families for whom their heating bills make up a larger slice of the monthly budget.<br /><br />We’d be remiss to not give credit where credit is due for this unprecedented hoard of natural gas: Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal well-drilling of shale formations around the country are entirely responsible for this resurgence in oil and natural gas production over the past eight years. It is hard to overstate the impact fracking has had on the U.S. energy landscape, and this latest glut of gas is just the latest example of its ability to shore up U.S. energy security.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/11/16/america-is-flush-with-shale-gas-just-in-time-for-winter/">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-40748187181525097192016-11-17T01:44:00.002+13:002016-11-17T01:44:30.439+13:00<br /><b>It’s Time to Stop Spending Taxpayer Dollars on Elon Musk and Cronyism</b><br /><br />From Enron to Bernie Madoff, at the end of every great American financial scandal, the totality of the perpetrators’ greed seems to be matched only by the public’s incredulity at how such a thing could be allowed to happen.<br /><br />And thanks to Elon Musk, there’s a good chance we may all be asking this question again soon.<br /><br />The Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee have launched a probe into tax incentives paid to solar companies, according to The Wall Street Journal. The committee probes, led by their respective Republican chairmen, Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, have found an appropriate and disturbing target to begin this work.<br /><br />SolarCity, a solar installation company set to be purchased by Tesla Motors Inc., is one of the seven companies named in the initial investigation.<br /><br />Already grossly subsidized, Musk’s SolarCity has become an albatross of waste, fraud, and abuse of tax payer dollars. As legitimate earnings and cash become even scarcer for SolarCity, its entanglement in the Tesla empire suggests that a drastic reckoning not only is imminent, but in fact emboldening Musk to become more outlandish and reckless.<br /><br />Notably, SolarCity is run by Musk’s cousins, Lyndon and Peter Rive. During his chairmanship at SolarCity, Musk’s family enterprise has taken in billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies from both the federal and local governments. But the subsidies and sweetheart deals were not enough, as losses and missed projections continued to mount.<br /><br />Ultimately, rather than endure the embarrassment of collapse and further damage to the public image of Musk and Tesla, the cousins conspired to have Tesla simply purchase SolarCity this year. The conditions of the deal screamed foul play.<br /><br />To say nothing of what sense it might make for an automaker to purchase a solar installation company, Tesla stockholders were being forced to absorb a failing, cash-burning company and pay top dollar to do so.<br /><br />While cost cutting and corporate restructuring should have been the priority for a company swimming in debt and burning through available cash, SolarCity in fact has been doubling down on the failed model of taxpayer support. The desperate thirst for handouts has manifested itself in some of the murkiest political waters imaginable.<br /><br />Thanks to Musk’s cozy relationship with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, the state has granted at least $750 million of its taxpayers’ money to SolarCity, building the company a factory and charging it only $1 per year in rent.<br /><br />It would be hard to imagine such an operation would not be lucrative for its shareholders. And yet somehow, SolarCity never has made a profit.<br /><br />It’s not just in New York. In this year’s race for Arizona Corporation Commission, the state’s public utilities overseers, only one outside group funneled cash into the contest.<br /><br />All of the $3 million donated by that group, Energy Choice for America, came from SolarCity. The beneficiaries are candidates who have signaled their willingness to be part of the “green machine” that greases the skids for lucrative government subsidies.<br /><br />Burning through taxpayer dollars, buying elections, and expanding a network of crony capitalism has become so inherent to the SolarCity model that $3 million to a public commissioner’s race, brazen though it may be, is only a drop in the bucket for Musk and SolarCity.<br /><br />In 2013 alone, SolarCity received $127.4 million in federal grants. The following year, in which it received only $342,000 from the same stimulus package, total revenue was just $176 million and the company posted a net loss of $375 million.<br /><br />Despite an expansion of operations and claims to be the leader in the industry, SolarCity never has been able to survive without serious help from government subsidies and grants. The failure to responsibly turn taxpayer dollars into a profitable renewable energy provider has led to SolarCity’s collapse into the welcoming arms of Tesla.<br /><br />And with Tesla, SolarCity in fact will be right at home, compounding a disastrous shell game that Elon Musk is playing with government resources.<br /><br />It has been widely reported that among SolarCity, Tesla, and the rocket company SpaceX, Elon Musk’s confederacy of interests has gotten at least $4.9 billion in taxpayer support over the past 10 years.<br /><br />This is almost half of Musk’s supposed net worth—taken from the pockets of American citizens and put into companies that can survive only by cannibalizing each other, spending without end, and promising that success is always just beyond the horizon and yet never arrives.<br /><br />The American people are being taken on a ride by SolarCity, Tesla, and Musk. The ride is fueled by a cult of personality in Musk. And it costs billions of taxpayer dollars as he promises us not only the moon, but to harness the power of the sun and send us all to Mars.<br /><br />In the cases of Enron and Bernie Madoff, in the end the cheated victims wished to have woken up sooner to the hubris that enabled such a downfall—or that at least regulators had pulled their heads out of the sand before the full impact of the collapse was realized.<br /><br />We’ve seen this story before and we know how it ends.<br /><br />The congressional investigations underway not only are necessary but a signal that more must be done, and soon. We may not be able to help Elon Musk stop himself from failing again, but we certainly shouldn’t be the ones to pay for it.<br /><br />It’s past time for the American people to stand up to Musk and demand that our legislators and other elected officials bring him back to earth before spending one more dollar of our money. He’s wasted enough of it already.<br /><br /><a href="http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/13/its-time-to-stop-spending-taxpayer-dollars-on-elon-musk-and-cronyism/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Climate Report to UN: Trump right, UN wrong – Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit</b><br /><br />Key climate data highlights:<br /><br />Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming<br /><br />The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.<br /><br />Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.<br /><br />Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.<br /><br />Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.<br /><br />Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.<br /><br />So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.<br /><br />A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’<br /><br />In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade.<br /><br />Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.<br /><br />Introduction:<br /><br />CO2 is not the tail that wags the dog. CO2 is a trace essential gas, but without it life on earth would be impossible. Carbon dioxide fertilizes algae, trees, and crops to provide food for humans and animals. We inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels cannot possibly supplant the numerous complex and inter-connected forces that have always determined Earth’s climate. As University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added.<br /><br />Even the global warming activists at RealClimate.org acknowledged this in a September 20, 2008 article, stating, “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors.”<br /><br />The UN Paris climate change agreement claims to able to essentially save the planet from ‘global warming’. But even if you accept the UN’s and Al Gore’s version of climate change claims, the UN Paris agreement would not ‘save’ the planet.<br /><br />University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”<br /><br />In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!<br /><br />The United Nations has publicly stated its goal is not to ‘solve’ climate change, but to seek to redistribute wealth and expand its authority through more central planning. UN official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, admitted what’s behind the climate issue: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”<br /><br />EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard revealed: Global Warming Policy Is Right Even If Science Is Wrong. Hedegaard said in 2013, “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate,’ would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”<br /><br />The UN is seeking central planning. UN climate chief Christiana Figueres declared in 2012 that she is seeking a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.” She added: “This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.”<br /><br />The UN and EPA regulations are pure climate symbolism in exchange for a more centrally planned energy economy. The UN and EPA regulations are simply a vehicle to put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of our energy economy and ‘save’ us from bad weather and ‘climate change.’<br /><br />Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer in 2016: “Global warming and climate change, even if it is 100% caused by humans, is so slow that it cannot be observed by anyone in their lifetime.<br /><br />Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and other natural disasters have yet to show any obvious long-term change. This means that in order for politicians to advance policy goals (such as forcing expensive solar energy on the masses or creating a carbon tax), they have to turn normal weather disasters into “evidence” of climate change.”<br /><br />While the climate fails to behave like the UN and climate activists predict, very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called “consensus.”<br /><br />Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’ – An Obama supporter who describes himself as “100 per cent Democrat,” Dyson is disappointed that the President “chose the wrong side.”<br /><br />Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn’t face an existential crisis. ‘What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger.’<br /><br />Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ – ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’ ‘Global warming really has become a new religion.’ – “I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in 2015…I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position.’<br /><br />Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’: Now says ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy’ – Condemns green movement: ‘It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific’ – Lovelock rips scientists attempting to predict temperatures as ‘idiots’: “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.”<br /><br />While these scientists take another look at the climate data, efforts to transform economies away from fossil fuels underway but even proponents admit they are purely symbolic.<br /><br />EPA Chief Admits Obama Regs Have No Measurable Climate Impact: ‘One one-hundredth of a degree?’ EPA Chief McCarthy defends regs as ‘enormously beneficial’ – Symbolic impact<br /><br />Former Obama Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell: ‘The Clean Power Plan has been falsely sold as impactful environmental regulation when it is really an attempt by our primary federal environmental regulator to take over state and federal regulation of energy.’ – ‘What is also clear, scientifically and technically, is that EPA’s plan will not significantly impact global emissions.’ – ‘All of the U.S. annual emissions in 2025 will be offset by three weeks of Chinese emissions. Three weeks.’<br /><br />And energy use has not really changed all that much in over 100 years. Reality check: In 1908, fossil fuels accounted for 85% of U.S. energy consumption. In 2015, more or less the same<br /><br /><a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/15/skeptics-deliver-2016-state-of-the-climate-report-to-un-summit-everything-you-been-told-about-global-warming-is-wrong/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Trump Regulatory Rollback: Auto Fuel Efficiency Standards</b><br /><br />Activists howl in outrage and frustration<br /><br />The Obama Administration imposed fuel efficiency standards on the automobile industry requiring them to increase fuel efficiency standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Now carmakers are reportedly asking the incoming Trump administration for a "a pathway forward" on setting final fuel efficiency standards through 2025 and calling on the next administration to "harmonize and adjust" the rules.<br /><br />Predictably, any hint that regulations might be rolled back brings forth howls of protest from activists. And so it has. Public Citizen, the self-styled "people's voice in the nation's capital" issued a press release decrying the notion that corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards might be loosened:<br /><br /><br />"In 2009, in the aftermath of financial losses that stemmed from poor sales of inefficient fleets and higher oil prices, American taxpayers rescued the auto industry after it nearly went out of business. Now, this same industry sent a memo to Trump's lobbyist-staffed transition team asking for permission to ease off improved fuel economy standards.<br /><br />"Let's not forget that the reason the auto industry had to be bailed out was because automakers built a fleet of gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles that they could no longer sell. More fuel efficient cars would have saved them and taxpayers the trouble, but now it appears that the auto industry has learned nothing from its recent mistakes.<br /><br />"Federal regulators raised fuel efficiency standards because they save consumers money and are an important part of our effort to combat climate change"<br /><br /><br />Back in 2009, I criticized Obama's proposed CAFE standards as an inefficient stealth tax on driving. It's inefficient because drivers pay more, car companies make less money, and state and federal governments don't get any extra revenues. If activists and politicians want Americans to drive more fuel-efficient cars, the simple and honest thing to do would be to substantially raise gasoline taxes concluded a 2002 National Academy of Sciences report.<br /><br />Ultimately, I argued, setting CAFE standards is just a way for cowardly politicians to avoid telling their fellow citizens that they should pay more for the privilege of driving.<br /><br /><a href="http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/11/trump-regulatory-rollback-auto-fuel-eff1">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Ecological impact assessments fail to reduce risk of bat casualties at wind farms</b><br /><br />Paul R. Lintott et al.<br /><br />Summary<br /><br />Demand for renewable energy is rising exponentially. While this has benefits in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there may be costs to biodiversity [1]. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are the main tool used across the world to predict the overall positive and negative effects of renewable energy developments before planning consent is given, and the Ecological Impact Assessments (EcIAs) within them assess their species-specific effects. Given that EIAs are undertaken globally, are extremely expensive, and are enshrined in legislation, their place in evidence-based decision making deserves evaluation. Here we assess how well EIAs of wind-farm developments protect bats. We found they do not predict the risks to bats accurately, and even in those cases where high risk was correctly identified, the mitigation deployed did not avert the risk. Given that the primary purpose of an EIA is to make planning decisions evidence-based, our results indicate that EIA mitigation strategies used to date have been ineffective in protecting bats. In the future, greater emphasis should be placed on assessing the actual impacts post-construction and on developing effective mitigation strategies.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31188-5">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Finally, Warmists Find a Real Threat</b><br /><br /><i>Comment from Australia</i><br /><br />Whatever else he does, President-elect Donald Trump can be counted on to shoo those green snouts out of the climate-scare trough -- first by repealing Obama's executive orders, then by re-directing from the UN to domestic environmental concerns. It's a beautiful thing<br /><br />“I’m feeling very flat today,” snuffled Amanda McKenzie, CEO of Tim Flannery’s crowd-funded Climate Council. &nbsp;As she should, given that &nbsp;President-elect Trump will &nbsp;end &nbsp;the trillion-dollar renewable-energy scam so beloved by the council.<br /><br />McKenzie continues, “Progress on climate change can feel hopeless and it’s tempting to give up and turn away.” But instead, she rattles the tin for donations of $10 a month “to allow us to undertake some massive projects next year that will power communities and everyday Australians to spearhead our renewable energy transition.” Good luck with that, Amanda.<br /><br />Throughout the Western world, green lobbies are likewise oscillating between despair and self-delusion over the Trump election.<br /><br />Trump’s agenda – as per his election website – &nbsp;includes<br /><br />Unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves.<br /><br />Declare American energy dominance a strategic economic and foreign policy goal of the United States.<br /><br />Become, and stay, totally independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC cartel or any nations hostile to our interests.<br /><br />Rescind all job-destroying Obama executive actions.<br /><br />Reduce and eliminate all barriers to responsible energy production, creating at least a half million jobs a year, $30 billion in higher wages, and cheaper energy.<br /><br />Trump says Obama’s onslaught of regulations has been a massive self-inflicted economic wound denying &nbsp;Americans access to the energy wealth sitting under their feet: “This is the American People’s treasure, and they are entitled to share in the riches.”<br /><br />Other than that, the president-elect’s &nbsp;common-sense policies make the 20,000 climate careerists and activists in Marrakech, led by Vice-President John Kerry, seem comically irrelevant. They were supposed to be implementing the feeble Paris climate accord – notwithstanding that China has just announced a 19% expansion of coal capacity over the next five years.<br /><br />But with the US leadership no longer concerned about climate doom, the rationale for these annual talk-fests (22 &nbsp;to date) has evaporated. Robert McNally, energy consultant and former George W. Bush adviser, &nbsp;says climate change policy “is going to come to a screeching halt. The Paris Agreement from a U.S. perspective is a dead agreement walking.”<br /><br />The agreement now has only the EU’s backing in terms of actual and significant cuts to emissions, although Australia is also now pledging to do its tiny bit for foot-shooting insanity. The EU’s continued subsidies to renewables will merely worsen its competitiveness vis a vis the new energy powerhouse across the Atlantic.<br /><br />Trump has pledged not only to rip up the Paris deal, but to withdraw all US climate funding to the UN. The UN climate fund is supposed to build to $100b a year for Third World mendicants. Obama has given $500m so far and pledged $3 billion to the UN climate fund, &nbsp;but Trump will divert those billions to domestic environmental projects such as the Florida Everglades. As he told supporters, &nbsp;“We’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars. We don’t even know who’s doing what with the money.”<br /><br />Obama, unable to get his climate legislation through the Republican-controlled Congress, used regulatory powers instead to get the job done. Trump can now neutralize those efforts simply by reversal or non-enforcement of the regulations.<br /><br />One of the climate war’s best-kept secrets is that there is no real constituency for renewables, other than vested interests and noisy green groups.[1] That’s why both candidates gave global warming so little prominence in the campaign. Nearly a third of Americans think the global warming scare is a total hoax.<br /><br />It’s a similar story internationally: a UN annual poll last month (9.7m respondents) had “action on climate change” rating dead last among 16 issues, with top ratings going to education, health care and jobs. Even people from the richest nations rated climate action only 10th. The poll in 2015 got the same result.<br /><br />Trump’s personal view on climate-change science &nbsp;is that &nbsp;CO2 is probably causing some warming but the scare is vastly exaggerated.[2] He will therefore reverse Obama’s assault on the coal and coal-fired power sectors and give them a better chance to compete with natural gas.<br /><br />Trump’s choice of key climate advisers is a nightmare for the warmist establishment. To transition the US Environmental Protection Agency from climate activism, he’s picked outspoken skeptic Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy &amp; Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute . The CEI is equivalent to Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs.<br /><br />Ebell laughs at his leftist critics and cites to congress his Greenpeace listing as a leading “climate criminal”. &nbsp;He thinks warming will not be a problem for one or two centuries; meanwhile we should expand access to all types of energy – on an unsubsidized basis.<br /><br />Canadian climate scientist Tim Ball told a Melbourne seminar this week that Trump is getting science advice from satellite meteorologist Dr Roy Spencer. Spencer’s &nbsp;data has demonstrated that orthodox climate models have exaggerated actual warming by a factor of two to three. His own readings from satellites showed no significant warming for the 21 years up to the 2015-16 El Nino spike. He emphasises the vast uncertainties about climate forecasting and the still-unknown roles of natural forces.<br /><br />Spencer, who holds a NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for global temperature monitoring, believes &nbsp;the near-universal funding of climate research by governments causes a bias towards catastrophic forecasting, since governments won’t fund non-problems. He wants funding to be at arm’s length from political interests. For the Department of Energy, Trump has picked energy lobbyist Mike McKenna, with ties to the industry-backed American Energy Alliance and Institute for Energy Research.<br /><br />Trump’s election is rocking the climate-scare industry to its foundations. Four decades of madness is coming to an end.<br /><br /><a href="http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2016/11/finally-warmists-find-real-threat/">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-36484633509407915872016-11-16T01:22:00.001+13:002016-11-16T01:22:43.323+13:00<br /><br /><b>Does the World Need Climate Insurance? The Best Scientific and Economic Evidence Says NO</b><br /><br />Executive Summary<br /><br />President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers asserts that climate insurance, like fire insurance, is just common sense. Their analogy, however, is fundamentally wrong. House fires are not only serious, but also common. We know what causes them, how often they occur, and the amount of damage that results. For a few hundred dollars a year, a homeowner can protect himself against a known risk of a catastrophic incident. Yet there is no empirical evidence that catastrophic climate change is a risk at all. Many people refer to carbon dioxide (CO2 ) as a “pollutant;” in reality, CO 2 gas is a natural part of the ecosystem—and essential to life on Earth. CO2 levels are currently at record low levels compared with those that prevailed over most of the Earth’s history. The modest increases in CO2 levels that have occurred over the past century—thanks, in part, to the combustion of fossil fuels—have led to a pronounced and well-documented greening of the Earth. Plants grow better and are more drought resistant with more CO2 . This greening has benefited—and will continue to benefit—human society, particularly the world’s poor, whose lives depend on productive agriculture. The actions necessary to reduce CO 2 emissions by any meaningful amount as “insurance” against climate change would be painful for Western countries and devastating for poor countries. Sensible people spend their insurance dollars carefully to protect their families against real risks. “Climate insurance” would simply be a waste of scarce resources<br /><br /><a href="http://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Climate-Insurance-White-PaperPQrev1-1.pdf">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Dakota Access—Legal, Beneficial &amp; Necessary </b><br /><br />With its recent decision to deny the temporary injunction requested by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed what supporters of the Dakota Access Pipeline have maintained fervently all along: the more-than-halfway finished pipeline satisfied every one of the myriad state and federal regulations that govern its construction and eventual operation. That alone should be enough for the Obama administration to comply with its own permitting process, and allow the project to resume.<br /><br />Equally compelling are Dakota Access’s real benefits to America’s economy, our domestic infrastructure and national security.<br /><br />North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois—the four states traversed by the 1,172-mile DAPL—engaged in a meticulous two-plus-yearlong project review. So, too, did the United States Army Corp of Engineers. All five of these public bodies determined, conclusively, that Dakota Access was safe, that its route did not disrupt any areas of cultural significance, and that it fell well within the compliance parameters of the individual states’ laws, as well as those of the federal government.<br /><br />From the beginning, Dakota Access emphasized commitment to consulting its Native American neighbors and to transparency. All available evidence—very much including the 389 meetings with 55 tribes arranged by the USACE— supports those claims. So, too, do the more than 140 modifications made voluntarily to the pipeline’s route itself. This is why even neutral observers can make the case that Dakota Access not only merited favorable certification, permitting and full approval, but earned them as well.<br /><br />And speaking of earning, the economic benefits of Dakota Access are significant. Not just to the four states involved—all of which already have received millions in new revenue thanks to the construction phase alone, along with more than $150 million in additional sales and income taxes—but also to the U.S. economy at large.<br /><br />To date, the $3.8 billion DAPL has incurred more than $2 billion in construction and development costs and will create between 8,000 and 10,000 jobs.<br /><br />Dakota Access is not just a welcome job-creator and tax-revenue-producing machine. It is also one of the largest American infrastructure investments to come along in some time. Once completed, it will utilize a safe, environmentally sound, state-of-the-art pipeline to transport domestically produced light, sweet crude oil from the Bakken region of North Dakota to major refining markets throughout the country.<br /><br />The reality is that America’s economy—everything from manufacturing and agriculture to food production and transportation, and even the development of newer, more sustainable energy resources—depends hugely on crude oil. Today, much of that crude oil is shipped across the country by rail or by truck, both of which represent much greater accident-related risks to public safety and to the environment. In fact, pipelines like Dakota Access are the safest mode of transportation on the globe.<br /><br />At today’s production levels, Dakota Access will transport half of the total output of the Bakken region, generating royalties for the landowners and states along the route, very much including the Native Americans who hold oil and gas leases on reservation property. It will also reduce America’s reliance on foreign—often hostile and unstable—sources of oil.<br /><br />Dakota Access was approved after extensive—and intensive—regulatory review. The Obama administration should green light its operation immediately. And the people still protesting and disrupting the pipeline’s completion, many of whom failed to participate in public hearings, should go home.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=8909">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Wind Power: Our Least Sustainable Resource?</b><br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; “A single 1.7 MW wind turbine, like the 315 Fowler Ridge units, involves some 365 tons of materials for the turbine assembly and tower, plus nearly 1,100 tons of concrete and rebar for the foundation. Grand total for the entire Fowler wind installation: some 515,000 tons; for Roscoe, 752,000 tons; for Shepherds Flat, 575,000 tons. Offshore installations of the kind proposed for Lake Erie would likely require twice the materials needed for their onshore counterparts.”<br /><br />The alter ego of climate change in these renewable energy debates is sustainability: the argument that wind and other “renewable” energies are sustainable, whereas oil, gas and coal are not.<br /><br />This assertion may have had some merit a few years ago, when it could plausibly be claimed that the world was running out of fossil fuels. However, it is now clear that several centuries of economically recoverable coal remain to be tapped – and the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) process ensures that at least one or two centuries of oil and natural gas could be recovered from shale deposits around the world. “Imminent resource depletion” is no longer a plausible or valid argument.<br /><br />Indeed, fracking provides abundant natural gas that can fuel power plants, lower carbon dioxide emissions and keep electricity prices low. Heavy reliance on wind energy (offshore and onshore) would raise electricity prices, while doing nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, since backup generators running on standby but ramping up repeatedly all day long run inefficiently and emit more carbon dioxide.<br /><br />However, there is another aspect to sustainability claims, and when common environmental guidelines, policies and regulations are applied, it is clear that wind energy is our least sustainable energy source.<br /><br />Land. Wind turbine installations impact vast amounts of habitat and crop land, and offshore wind turbines impact vast stretches of lake or ocean – far more than traditional power plants.<br /><br />Arizona’s Palo Verde nuclear plant generates 3,750 megawatts of electricity from a 4,000-acre site. The 600-MW John Turk ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plant in Arkansas covers a small portion of 2,900 acres; gas-fired units like Calpine’s 560-MW Fox Energy Center in Wisconsin require several hundred acres. All generate reliable power 90-95% of the year.<br /><br />By contrast, the 600-MW Fowler Ridge wind installation (355 turbines) spans 50,000 acres of farm country along Indiana’s I-65 corridor. The 782-MW Roscoe project in Texas (627 turbines) sprawls across 100,000 acres. Oregon’s Shepherds Flat project (338 gigantic 2.5 MW turbines) covers nearly 80,000 wildlife and scenic acres along the Columbia River Gorge, for a “rated capacity” of 845 MW.<br /><br />The 625 to 1,600 turbines planned for Lake Erie will impact hundreds of thousands of acres, planting bird and bat killing machines across miles and miles of lake habitat – while future Canadian wind farms on the Ontario side of the lake will affect hundreds of thousands more acres, and millions more birds and bats.<br /><br />Raw materials. Wind installations require enormous quantities of steel, copper, rare earth metals, fiberglass, concrete and other materials for the turbines, towers and bases.<br /><br />A single 1.7 MW wind turbine, like the 315 Fowler Ridge units, involves some 365 tons of materials for the turbine assembly and tower, plus nearly 1100 tons of concrete and rebar for the foundation. Grand total for the entire Fowler wind installation: some 515,000 tons; for Roscoe, 752,000 tons; for Shepherds Flat, 575,000 tons. Offshore installations of the kind proposed for Lake Erie would likely require twice the materials needed for their onshore counterparts.<br /><br />To all that must be added millions of tons of materials for thousands of miles of new transmission lines – and still more for mostly gas-fired generators to back up every megawatt of wind power and generate electricity the 17 to 20 hours of each average day that the wind does not blow.<br /><br />Money. Taxpayers and consumers must provide perpetual subsidies to prop up wind projects, which cannot survive without steady infusions of cash via feed-in tariffs, tax breaks and direct payments.<br /><br />Transmission lines cost $1.0 million to $2.5 million per mile. Direct federal wind energy subsidies to help cover this totaled $5 billion in FY 2010, according to Energy Department data; state support added billions more, and still more billions were added to consumers’ electric bills. The Other People’s Money well is running dry, and voters and consumers are getting fed up with cash-for-cronies wind schemes.<br /><br />Energy. It is extremely energy-intensive to mine, quarry, drill, mill, refine, smelt and manufacture the metals, concrete, fiberglass, resins, turbines and heavy equipment to do all of the above. Transporting, installing and repairing turbines, towers, backups and transmission lines requires still more energy – real energy: abundant, reliable, affordable … not what comes from wind turbines.<br /><br />Some analysts have said it requires more energy to manufacture, haul and install these Cuisinarts of the air and their transmission systems than they will generate in their lifetimes. However, no cradle-to-grave analysis has ever been conducted, for the energy inputs or pollution outputs.<br /><br />Health. Environmentalists regularly make scary but wildly speculative claims about health dangers from hydraulic fracturing. However, they and wind energy companies and promoters ignore and dismiss a growing body of evidence that steady low frequency noise from wind turbines causes significant human health problems, interferes with whale and porpoise navigational and food-finding systems, and affects other wildlife species.<br /><br />Sudden air pressure changes from rapidly moving turbine blades can cause bird and bat lungs to collapse. In addition, serious lung, heart, cancer and other problems have been documented from rare earth mining, smelting and manufacturing in China and Mongolia, under those countries’ far less rigorous health, workplace safety and environmental regulations.<br /><br />To date, however, very few health or environmental assessments have been required or conducted prior to permit approval, even for major wind turbine installations, much less the grand “visions.”<br /><br />Environment. Raptors, bats and other beautiful flying creatures continue to be sliced and diced by wind turbines. However, government regulators continue to turn a blind eye to the slaughter, and the actual toll is carefully hidden by wind operators, who treat the data as trade secrets and refuse to allow independent investigators to conduct proper studies of bird and bat mortality. Furthermore, wind turbines are increasingly being installed in sensitive wildlife habitat areas, like Lake Erie and onshore areas like Shepherds Flat, as they are often the best remaining areas for relatively abundant, consistent wind.<br /><br />Jobs. The myth of “green renewable energy jobs” is hitting the brick wall of reality. While turbines installed and maintained in the USA and EU create some jobs, many of them short-term, the far more numerous mining and manufacturing jobs are in China, where they are hardly “green” or “healthy.” Moreover, as Spanish and Scottish analysts have documented, the expensive intermittent electricity generated by wind turbines kills 2.2 to 3.7 traditional jobs for every “eco-friendly” wind job created.<br /><br />Electricity costs and reliability. Even huge subsidies cannot cure wind power’s biggest defects: its electricity costs far more than coal, gas or nuclear alternatives – and its intermittent nature wreaks havoc on power grids and consumers. The problem is worst on hot summer afternoons, when demand is highest and breezes are minimal. Unable to compete against cheap Chinese and Indian electricity and labor, energy-intensive industries increasingly face the prospect of sending operations and jobs overseas.<br /><br />All of this is simply and completely unsustainable.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.masterresource.org/windpower-problems/wind-power-least-sustainable-resource/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Breaking: 1920’s Brit ‘fatally infected’ All Government Climate Models</b><br /><br />A sensational new study shows western government climate models rely on a fatally flawed 1920’s algorithm. &nbsp;Scientists say this could be the breakthrough that explains why modern computers are so awful at predicting climate change: simulations “violate several known Laws of Thermodynamics.”<br /><br />British climate researcher Derek Alker presents an extraordinary new paper ‘Greenhouse Effect Theory within the UN IPCC Computer Climate Models – Is It A Sound Basis?’ exposing previously undetected errors that government climate researchers have unknowingly fed into multi-million dollar climate computers since the 1940s. [1]<br /><br />Alker explains:<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; “This paper examines what was originally calculated as the greenhouse effect theory by Lewis Fry Richardson, the brilliant English mathematician, physicist and meteorologist.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; In 1922 Richardson devised an innovative set of differential equations. His ingenious method is still used today in climate models. But unbeknown to Richardson he had inadvertently relied upon unchecked (and fatally flawed) numbers supplied by another well-known British scientist, W. H. Dines.”<br /><br />Unfortunately, for Richardson Dines wrongly factored in that earth’s climate is driven by terrestrial (ground) radiation as the only energy source, not the sun. Richardson had taken the Dines numbers on face value and did not detect the error when combining the Dines numbers to his own. Alker continues: “The archives show Richardson never double-checked the Dines work (see below) and the records do not show that anyone else has ever exposed it.”<br /><br />The outcome, says Alker, is that not only has the original Richardson &amp; Charney computer model been corrupted – &nbsp;but all other computer climate models since. All government researchers use these core numbers and believe them to be valid even though what they seek to represent can be shown today as physically impossible.<br /><br />Alker adds:<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; “My paper specifically describes how the theory Dines calculated in his paper violates several of the known Laws of Thermodynamics, and therefore does not describe reality.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; The greenhouse effect theory we know of today is based on what Richardson had formulated from the Dines paper using unphysical numbers created by Dines. But Dines himself later suggested his numbers were probably unreliable.”<br /><br />Unfortunately, Dines died in the mid-1920’s and did not inform Richardson about the error. Thereupon, in the late 1940’s, Richardson began working with another world figure in climate science – Jule Charney &nbsp;as the duo constructed the first world’s first computer climate model. It was then the dodgy Dines numbers infected the works.<br /><br />Alker, who studied the archives scrupulously for his research reports that there is no published evidence that Richardson understood Dines’s calculation method. And we think he and Charney put the Dines numbers into the world’s first computer model verbatim.<br /><br />In essence, the ‘theory’ of greenhouse gas warming from the Dines numbers can be shown to start with a misapplication of Planck’s Law, which generates grossly exaggerated ‘up’ and none existent ‘down’ radiative emissions figures. Then, layer by layer, part of the downward radiation is added to the layer below, which is in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.<br /><br />Thereby, like a domino effect, this bogus calculation method becomes GIGO (“garbage in, garbage out”) to all computers that run the program. Alker adds:<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; “What the climate simulations are doing is creating energy layer by layer in the atmosphere that shouldn’t be there (it has no other source than of itself). It is then destroyed layer by layer (it is absorbed and then discarded – in effect destroyed). This is all presented in such a way to give the appearance that energy is being conserved, when it is not being conserved,”<br /><br /><a href="http://climatechangedispatch.com/breaking-1920s-brit-fatally-infected-all-government-climate-models/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Myron Ebell is perfectly suited to lead the transition to a new EPA</b><br /><br />President-elect Donald Trump has named Myron Ebell to head up his transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The news was met with name-calling, even though Ebell agrees with the same position taken by a former top scientist with the Obama administration, Steve Koonin (formerly of Cal Tech) namely, that scientists simply do not know what fraction of observed global warming is due to manmade CO2 emissions.<br /><br />Consequently, Ebell has expressed concern about EPA positions, including the Clean Power Plan. The EPA’s controversial power plan is based on an inadequate understanding of global warming and should not drive our middle class into energy poverty against congressional will.<br /><br />Based on my experience as the secretary of a State Environmental Department, here are some observations I’d like to offer Ebell for his consideration.<br /><br />It is critical to understand that while the federal government, through Congress, establishes the overall goals of environmental protection through laws like the Clean Air and Water acts, the implementation of those laws is by state governments.<br /><br />Consequently, America has made tremendous strides in environmental protection over the last decades. We are breathing cleaner air and have cleaner water than ever before.<br /><br />State governments and their citizens have demonstrated the ability to implement programs that protect our environment without destroying the very thing that makes environmental protection possible: a strong economy.<br /><br />Over the last eight years the Obama administration has abandoned this successful approach to environmental protection as envisioned by Congress. Instead, they have turned to special interest groups to drive centralized planning. Prime examples include the 2015 EPA Power Plan and the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule.<br /><br />These rules contain illusory flexibility to states when in reality they represent a huge shift of control from states to the federal government. Even the current administration acknowledged that the power plan was symbolic and would do little to improve air quality.<br /><br />The power plan would be expensive and shut down energy plants that have not yet been paid for, thereby stranding those costs with ratepayers. It would harm the industrial sector by significantly increasing electricity rates, which would throttle manufacturing industries that require low energy prices to compete.<br /><br />Similarly, under WOTUS land use decisions would be federalized. Our nation’s agricultural industry would be hamstrung by costly and unnecessary land use restrictions, which would stifle growth opportunities. The expansion of manufacturing, commercial and residential development would be left to federal bureaucrats.<br /><br />Fortunately, dozens of states and state agencies stood their ground against the federal government and won stays against these rules. In an unprecedented move, the U.S. Supreme Court reached down into an appeals court to place the power plan on hold until the legal challenge against it could be resolved. The waters of the United States &nbsp;(WOTUS) rule was also stayed. We hope the Trump EPA will review existing rules and base its policy decisions on sound data and measurable results.<br /><br />History has demonstrated time and again that just as “all politics is local,” so is environmental protection. State and local governments know best how to apply the many tools available to protect the environment and public health. In fact, states are responsible for the vast majority of enforcement and write nearly all the permits through which the private sector protects us and our environment. We still need the EPA, but not the EPA of the past.<br /><br />Research should target specific problems and challenges. We need coordination on industry-level initiatives that cross state lines. However, we must end the idea that more regulation is automatically good and allow state and local experts, not Washington bureaucrats, to improve the environment. It is time to return to the cooperative federalism that Congress intended when writing these laws.<br /><br />Returning control of our environment to the states also limits the dark money from self-serving lobbyists and deep-pocketed special interest groups masquerading as environmentalists. Almost every major rulemaking under the Obama administration was driven by a sue-and-settle scheme that is designed to allow special interest and federal appointees to write rules in private and exclude citizen involvement. This was evident by the EPA’s shameful use of secret emails whereby high-ranking EPA officials used fictitious email accounts to communicate with special interest groups to avoid the reach of public records.<br /><br />A thoughtful and knowledgeable individual like Myron Ebell appears to be perfectly suited to lead the transition to a new EPA. His position on climate change is simply one example of his suitability. The EPA does play a role in environmental protection. However, that role, like all federal government, should be limited in order to maximize freedom.<br /><br /><a href="https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/305498-myron-ebell-is-perfectly-suited-to-lead-the-transition">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-24616866859432974942016-11-15T01:23:00.001+13:002016-11-15T01:24:17.199+13:00<br /><br /><b>Report: carbon emissions flat in last 3 years</b><br /><br /><i>This fun on several levels. &nbsp;If the trend (or lack of it) continues the "fight" is over. &nbsp;CO2 levels have been stabilized and there is now no further need for action on the global warming front. &nbsp;We have arrived at where we are going and the temperature &nbsp;is fine. &nbsp;Keep the coalfires burning!<br /><br />Needless to say, the Warmists are once again taking refuge in prophecy. &nbsp;Instead of extrapolating from the present situation, which is the only data we have, they are saying: &nbsp;No, No, No -- Anything but that! You can't take our game away from us like that! &nbsp;So on the basis of nothing at all they are prophesying a resumption of CO2 rises. &nbsp;No science there: &nbsp;Just faith. &nbsp;They haven't got a clue about climate but they do have faith.<br /><br />But there's another level on which this is fun. &nbsp;The Warmists have been proclaiming for the same three years that temperatures are leaping -- with 2015 showing a temperature of a whole degree above the reference period. &nbsp;And there is an element of truth in that. &nbsp;But what CAUSED the recent warming? &nbsp;If there was no increase in CO2 the increase in temperature cannot be due to CO2! &nbsp;The connection which is the very basis of Warmist theory just did not happen -- again.<br /><br />The increases which the Green/Left have been proclaiming as proof of a global emergency CANNOT have been due to human activity and must have been due to normal natural phenomena like the El Nino climate cycle. &nbsp;What a teeth grinder!<br /><br />But will they really grind their teeth over it? &nbsp;Unlikely. &nbsp;They already ignore so many inconvenient facts that ignoring this one will be a breeze<br /></i><br /><br />Worldwide emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide have flattened out in the past three years, a new study showed Monday, raising hopes that the world is nearing a turning point in the fight against climate change.<br /><br />However, the authors of the study cautioned it's unclear whether the slowdown in CO2 emissions, mainly caused by declining coal use in China, is a permanent trend or a temporary blip.<br /><br />"It is far too early to proclaim we have reached a peak," said co-author Glen Peters, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo.<br /><br />The study, published in the journal Earth System Science Data, says global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry is projected to grow by just 0.2 percent this year.<br /><br />That would mean emissions have leveled off at about 36 billion metric tons in the past three years even though the world economy has expanded, suggesting the historical bonds between economic gains and emissions growth may have been severed.<br /><br />"This could be the turning point we have hoped for," said David Ray, a professor of carbon management at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved with the study. "To tackle climate change those bonds must be broken and here we have the first signs that they are at least starting to loosen."<br /><br />The authors of the study attributed the slowdown mainly to a decrease in Chinese coal consumption since 2012. Coal is a major source of CO2 emissions.<br /><br />Chinese emissions were down 0.7 percent in 2015 and are projected to fall 0.5 percent in 2016, the researchers said, though noting that Chinese energy statistics have been plagued by inconsistencies.<br /><br />Peters said it remains unclear whether the Chinese slowdown was due to a restructuring of the Chinese economy or a sign of economic instability.<br /><br />"Nevertheless, the unexpected reductions in Chinese emissions give hope that the world's biggest emitter can deliver much more ambitious emission reductions," he said.<br /><br />China, which accounts for almost 30 percent of global carbon emissions, pledged to peak its emissions around 2030 as part of the global climate pact adopted in Paris last year. Many analysts say China's peak is likely to come much earlier — and may already have occurred.<br /><br />"The continued decline of China's CO2 emissions, combined with knowledge of structural change in the energy system, does indicate that CO2 emissions from China may have peaked, however a few more years of data is needed to confirm this," said Bill Hare, of Climate Analytics, a separate group that monitors global emissions.<br /><br />However, even if Chinese emissions have stabilized, emissions in India and other developing countries could push global emissions higher again. India's emissions rose 5 percent in 2015, the study said.<br /><br />The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States — the world's No. 2 carbon polluter — could also have an impact.<br /><br />U.S. emissions fell 2.6 percent last year and are projected to drop 1.7 percent this year, as natural gas and renewables displace coal in power generation, the study showed. But it's unclear whether those reductions will continue under Trump, who has pledged to roll back the Obama administration's environmental policies, including the Clean Power Plan, which was meant to reduce carbon pollution from U.S. power plants.<br /><br />Other researchers not affiliated with the study stressed that it's not enough for global emissions to stabilize; they need to drop toward zero for the world to meet the goals of the Paris deal.<br /><br />"Worryingly, the reductions pledged by the nations under the Paris Agreement are not sufficient to achieve this," said climate scientist Chris Rapley of University College London.<br /><br />The agreement calls for limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or even 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) compared with pre-industrial times.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-11-13/report-carbon-emissions-flat-in-last-3-years">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Global warming is already changing genes</b><br /><br /><i>This is utter rot. &nbsp;They cannot know just which influences are behind any selective pressure. &nbsp;It could be fishing, mining, tourism or whatever. &nbsp;The article is just an exercise in speculation</i><br /><br />Global climate change has already impacted every aspect of life on Earth, from genes to entire ecosystems, according to a new study in Science.<br /><br />“We now have evidence that, with only a ~1 degree Celsius of warming globally, major impacts are already being felt in natural systems,” says study lead author Brett Scheffers, an assistant professor in the department of wildlife, ecology and conservation at the University of Florida.<br /><br />“Some people didn’t expect this level of change for decades.”<br />“Genes are changing, species’ physiology and physical features such as body size are changing, species are shifting their ranges, and we see clear signs of entire ecosystems under stress, all in response to changes in climate on land and in the ocean.”<br /><br />Scheffers and researchers from 10 countries found that more than 80 percent of ecological processes that form the foundation for healthy marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems already show signs of responses to climate change.<br /><br />“Some people didn’t expect this level of change for decades,” says coauthor James Watson of the University of Queensland. “The impacts of climate change are being felt with no ecosystem on Earth being spared.”<br /><br />Many of the impacts on species and ecosystems affect people, according to the authors, with consequences ranging from increased pests and disease outbreaks, unpredictable changes in fisheries, and decreasing agriculture yields.<br /><br />Why our grandkids will encounter different plants<br /><br />“Many of the responses we are observing today in nature can help us determine how to fix the mounting issues that people face under changing climate conditions,” Scheffers says. “For example, by understanding the adaptive capacity in nature, we can apply these same principles to our crops, livestock, and aquacultural species.”<br /><br />“Current global climate change agreements aim to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius,” says Wendy Foden, coauthor and chair of the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s Climate Change Specialist Group. “We’re showing that there are already broad and serious impacts from climate change right across biological systems.”<br /><br /><a href="http://www.futurity.org/climate-change-genes-1296152-2/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Republicans plan multi-billion dollar climate budget raid </b><br /><br />The winds of change following the US election are about to blow through the well-funded – up to now at least – world of climate-related bureaucracy, as CCN mournfully reports.<br />US Republicans are expected to axe billions of dollars in climate finance when they take the White House and Congress in January.<br /><br />Funds to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of global warming and develop sustainably will be redirected to domestic priorities.<br /><br />“We are going to cancel billions in payments to the UN climate change programmes and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure,” said President-elect Donald Trump in his 22 October Gettysburg address. With a Republican majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, there appears to be little standing in his way.<br /><br />Rachel Kyte, head of the UN’s Sustainable Energy for All programme, said Trump did not have a mandate to reverse US climate finance commitments. “All developed countries made promises,” she said. “A promise made has to be a promise kept.”<br /><br />Notably, the US promised $3 billion towards the UN-backed Green Climate Fund, of which just $500m has been delivered. The outstanding sum is a major chunk of the $10bn seed money donated to the flagship scheme.<br /><br />UN institutions are also vulnerable. The Republicans have been gunning for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since it accepted Palestine as a full party earlier this year.<br /><br />They say continuing to fund it clashes with domestic law supportive to Israel – an argument Barack Obama rejected.<br /><br />“It would be illegal for the President to follow through on his intention to provide millions in funding for the UNFCCC and hundreds of millions for its Green Climate Fund,” says the Republican platform.<br /><br />A US exit would leave a $4m hole in the UNFCCC’s annual budget, more than a fifth of the total.<br />—<br />The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which periodically compiles a mass of scientific evidence on the dangerous impacts of global warming and its human causes, also comes under attack.<br /><br />It is “a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution”, says the Republican manifesto. “Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly.”<br /><br />Contributing $5m over the past five years, the US is the biggest backer of the IPCC. While the Republicans don’t explicitly threaten to end that, their hostility does not bode well.<br /><br /><a href="https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/11/13/republicans-plan-multi-billion-dollar-climate-budget-raid/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Record Global Cooling Over The Last Eight Months</b><br /><br />Over the last eight months, global temperatures over land have cooled a record 1.2 C. November is seeing record cold in Russia and South Australia, so we should see the record cooling trend continue.<br /><br /><img src="http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-Shot-2016-11-13-at-8.11.06-PM.png" height="400" width="600" /><br /><br />As temperatures cool at a record pace, experts say global warming is now unstoppable.<br /><br />People in Russia might tend to disagree with this assessment.<br /><br /><img src="http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-Shot-2016-11-13-at-8.19.15-PM" height="300" width="600" /><br /><br /><a href="http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/record-global-cooling-over-the-last-eight-months/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>New Regs Ignore Fact Fracking Doesn't Taint Well Water</b><br /><br />Energy: New federal regulations on fracking on public land ignore a study documenting that methane found in well water is unrelated to the location of hydraulically fractured oil and gas wells.<br /><br />When the Obama administration recently released its new regulations on fracking — regulations that it said were needed to keep up with the advance and success of the decades-old technology to meet public safety needs — the Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance immediately filed suit, saying that the new regs were based on "unsubstantiated concerns" that lacked any scientific basis.<br /><br />"Hydraulic fracturing has been conducted safely and responsibly in the United States for over 60 years," noted IPAA president Barry Russell, who also pointed out the impact of the new regulations on job and economic growth. Fracking has produced an oil and natural gas boom, making them energy sources of the future, not the past.<br /><br />The Obama administration doesn't like fracking and wishes that fracking would just go away so it can go on subsidizing the Solyndras of the world. But Russell is right: Fracking is safe, and the new study proves that any concerns are politically motivated fear-mongering.<br /><br />Published online in late March in Environmental Science and Technology, the study focused on 11,309 drinking wells in northeastern Pennsylvania. It found that background levels of methane in well water are unrelated to the location of oil and gas wells drilled using fracking technology.<br /><br />The study calls into question the validity of studies released in 2011 and 2013, touted by the White House and its environmentalist base as proving the dangers of fracking. But these studies involved selected groups of only 60 and 141 domestic well samples from wells near Dimock, Pa.<br /><br />As we noted in June of 2013 ("EPA Covers Up The Safety Of Fracking"), Dimock was the centerpiece of "Promised Land," a film financed by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates that did nothing to alter Hollywood's stereotype of businessmen — particularly energy-industry executives — as greedy plunderers of the planet.<br /><br />The oil and natural gas boom from the shale of the Bakken Formation in North Dakota and the Marcellus in, yes, Pennsylvania, threatens the Emirates and other OPEC members.<br /><br />Critics of the new study will point out that Chesapeake Energy, which has large oil and gas interests in Pennsylvania, provided the database for the researchers. But they did not provide the conclusions, and we think a study from a team led by hydrologist Donald Siegel of Syracuse University has more credibility than a film starring Matt Damon and financed by OPEC.<br /><br />Siegel does not dispute that there may be occasional individual instances of well contamination due to poor construction and faulty casings. But he points to a 2014 study that found that just 0.24% of the thousands of wells in northeast Pennsylvania were ever given citations for well water contaminated with methane.<br /><br />Speaking of his mega-study vs. the 2011 and 2013 selected samplings, Siegel says: "I would argue that (more than) 10,000 data points really tell a better story."<br /><br />Shale formations in which fracking is used are thousands of feet deep. Drinking-water aquifers are generally only a hundred feet deep. There's a lot of solid rock in between. And as we've said, the technology is not new, with the first well employing fracking being drilled in Oklahoma in 1947.<br /><br />As noted by Energy in Depth, a petroleum-industry research, education and outreach campaign, CO2 emissions are at their lowest in 20 years due to greater use of natural gas from fracking — part of an energy boom creating thousands of jobs and enhancing energy security.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.investors.com/fracking-does-not-taint-drinking-water/">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-30263090762003187522016-11-14T01:19:00.002+13:002016-11-14T01:19:29.965+13:00<br /><br /><b>Elitist Journal Rejects Skeptic Study As ‘Not Helpful’ To Climate Cult</b><br /><br />A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism, it was claimed last night.<br /><br />The alarming intervention, which raises fears of ‘McCarthyist’ pressure for environmental scientists to conform, came after a reviewer said the research was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause. professor<br /><br />Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.<br /><br />‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.<br /><br />Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought. If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe.<br /><br />The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.<br /><br />The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.<br /><br />The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’<br /><br />Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds. He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.<br /><br />‘If people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.’<br /><br />Next year the UN hopes to broker an international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol which would impose legally binding targets on every country. The last attempt, at the Copenhagen conference in 2009, ended in disaster, with recriminations flying and all chances of a deal in tatters.<br /><br />The Paris conference in December 2015 is thought by many politicians to be the last realistic chance for a deal to be made if disastrous climate change is to be averted. A controversy at this stage risks putting the science which underpins the negotiations at doubt, something many – not least politicians in Britain and the US – will be keen to avoid.<br /><br />The publisher of the Environmental Research Letters journal last night said Professor Bengtsson’s paper had been rejected because it contained errors and did not sufficiently advance the science.<br /><br />A spokesman for IOP Publishing said: ‘The paper, co-authored by Lennart Bengtsson, was originally submitted to Environmental Research Letters as a research Letter.<br /><br />‘This was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal’s required acceptance criteria.<br /><br />‘As a consequence, the independent reviewers recommended that the paper should not be published in the journal which led to the final editorial decision to reject the paper.’<br /><br /><a href="http://principia-scientific.org/elitist-journal-rejects-skeptic-study-not-helpful-climate-cult/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Now comes the hard, fun and vital part</b><br /><br /><i>“Making America great again” requires deep-sixing punitive energy and environmental rules</i><br /><br />Paul Driessen<br /><br />The American people have roundly rejected a third Obama term and legacy of deplorable policies that were too often imposed via executive edicts, with minimal attempts to work with Congress or the states.<br /><br />This election shows that hard-working Americans do not want their country and its constitutional, energy and economic systems “fundamentally transformed.” They want America to be great and exceptional again. They want all people to live under the same laws and have the same opportunities, rights and responsibilities for making their lives, families, communities and nation better than they found them.<br /><br />We the People also made it clear that we have had a bellyful of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, media moguls and intellectual elites dictating what we can read, think and say, how we may worship, what insurance and doctors can have, what rules, jobs and living standards we must live with.<br /><br />With the elections over, the truly difficult tasks lie before us. Filling Supreme Court vacancies with jurists who believe in our Constitution, repealing and replacing ObamaCare, reforming the politicized IRS, DOJ and FBI, immigration issues, and fixing the VA and incomprehensible tax code are all high on every list.<br /><br />However, abundant, reliable, affordable energy remains the foundation of modern civilization, jobs, health and prosperity. So these suggestions for President Trump’s first years focus on critical tasks that can be accomplished by his Executive Branch alone or in conjunction with Congress and the states.<br /><br />As you read them, thousands of politicians, regulators, scientists and activists are gathered for yet another “climate conference,” this time in Marrakech, Morocco. They are shocked and despondent over the election results, and worried that the Trump Administration won’t support their agenda. They’re right.<br /><br />Under the guise of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” and compensating poor countries for alleged “losses and damages” due to climate and weather caused by rich country fossil fuel use, they had planned to control the world’s energy supplies and living standards, replace capitalism with a new UN-centered global economic order, and redistribute wealth from those who create it to those who want it. So:<br /><br />Job One) Let the assembled delegates and world know America has a president – and a Congress – not a king. Suspend and defund any initiatives and orders issued under the Paris climate treaty, and send it to the Senate for Advice and Consent (and assured rejection) under Article II of the Constitution. Its impacts are so onerous and far-reaching that it is clearly a “treaty” within the meaning of our founding document, even if President Obama prefers to call it a “nonbinding agreement” to avoid Senate review.<br /><br />2) Review the assertions, models, “homogenized” data, science and research behind the multitude of climate and renewable energy mandates – to see if they reflect Real World empirical evidence. Many, most or all will be found to be biased, wildly exaggerated, faulty, falsified or fraudulent.<br /><br />The recent listing of polar bears as “endangered” was based on junk science and GIGO computer models that claim manmade global warming will send the bears’ record population numbers into oblivion. EPA’s Clean Power Plan assumes shutting down US coal-fired power plants will stop climate change, even if China, India and other countries build thousands of new coal-fueled generators over the next 20 years.<br /><br />The all-encompassing “social cost of carbon” scheme attributes every imaginable harm to carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. It ignores the incredible benefits of carbon-based energy, and dismisses the horrendous impacts that abandoning these fuels would have on human health and welfare.<br /><br />Every one of these EPA, Interior and other regulatory diktats assumes that CO2 has suddenly replaced the powerful natural forces that have driven climate fluctuations throughout Earth’s history – and ignores this miracle molecule’s role in making crops, forests and grasslands grow faster and better, with less water.<br /><br />As reviews are completed, agenda-driven rules and executive orders should be suspended, rescinded and defunded, so that they are no longer part of the $1.9 trillion regulatory drag on job and economic growth.<br /><br />Grants for biased research can be terminated, agency personnel assigned to climate programs can be reassigned, and those found falsifying data or engaging in other corrupt practices should be punished.<br /><br />3) A recent White House report lists $21.4 billion in annual spending on climate research and renewable energy programs. That’s in addition to EPA and other federal agency regulatory budgets – and on top of the burdensome impacts the programs have had on families, businesses, jobs and our future.<br /><br />Terminating biased, needless or punitive programs would go a long way toward balancing the budget and getting our nation back on track. Ending crony corporatist deal-making, power grabbing and enrichment schemes would ensure that The Billionaire’s Club and its government and industry allies no longer have access to taxpayer billions, no longer have a stranglehold on our energy and economy, and no longer get still richer on the backs of American workers, taxpayers and consumers.<br /><br />4) Revise Endangered Species Act provisions and regulations to require that any listings, permit denials or penalties reflect honest empirical science – not computer models or baseless assertions. Exemptions for bird and bat-killing wind turbines must no longer be permitted, and ESA rules must be applied with equal force to all projects, not just drilling, mining, pipelines, power plants, grazing and timber cutting.<br /><br />5) Approve the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines; end the obstructionism and finish the projects. Standing Rock Sioux Indians had multiple opportunities to participate in the review process, but refused to do so. Now they and Soros-supported radicals are preventing work, destroying expensive equipment, butchering ranchers’ cattle and bison, and harassing local families. This can no longer be tolerated.<br /><br />6) Prohibit and terminate sue-and-settle lawsuits, under which activists and regulators collude to secure a sympathetic judge’s order implementing regulations that they all want. (Or initiate a series of sue-and-settle actions by energy and manufacturing interests against Trump agencies – and then stop the practice!)<br /><br />7) Reform the 1906 Antiquities Act. Intended to protect small areas of historic or scenic value, it has been abused too often to place millions of acres off limits to energy development and other economic uses, by presidential edict. Losing Senate candidate Katie McGinty engineered a massive land lock-up in Utah that double-crossed the state’s governor and congressional delegation, and even President Clinton.<br /><br />Congress must more clearly define its purposes, limit the acreage that can be designated by presidential decree, and provide for congressional review and approval of all decisions.<br /><br />8) Reform the Environmental Protection Agency, and devolve many of its powers and responsibilities back to the states, under a consortium representing all 50 state EPAs. We have won the major pollution battles that EPA was created to address. Now we must devote appropriate funding and personnel to real remaining environmental problems – and shrink or terminate Obama-era agenda-driven programs.<br /><br />Recent EPA actions on climate, air quality, human experiments, the Clean Power Plan, the war on coal, and “waters of the United States” were used to expand its budget, personnel, and powers over the nation’s environment, energy and economy. EPA needs a shorter leash, less money and a smaller staff.<br /><br />9) Shrink the renewable energy programs, and jumpstart onshore and offshore leasing, drilling, fracking and mining on federally managed lands. America can again produce the fossil fuel blessings that lifted billions out of poverty, disease and early death – and created jobs, prosperity, health, living standards and life spans unimaginable barely a century ago. We should also encourage other nations to do likewise.<br /><br />10) If President Obama finishes his term with a tsunami of regulations and executive orders, it should be met with similar suspend, defund and rescind reactions. Mr. Obama, congressional Democrats and their riot-prone base should understand that programs and rules imposed with the stroke of a pen, and without the support of Congress and the American people, can and should also be undone with the stroke of a pen.<br /><br />Without these difficult but necessary (and fun) steps, it will be very hard to make America great again.<br /><br /><i>Via email</i><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Tears, angst as EPA workforce braces for Trump takeover</b><br /><br />U.S. EPA employees were in tears. Worried Energy Department staffers were offered counseling. Some federal employees were so depressed, they took time off. Others might retire early.<br /><br />And some employees are in downright panic mode in the aftermath of Donald Trump's victory.<br /><br />"People are upset. Some people took the day off because they were depressed," said John O'Grady, president of American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, a union that represents thousands of EPA employees. After Election Day, "people were crying," added O'Grady, who works in EPA's Region 5 office in Chicago. "They were recommending that people take sick leave and go home."<br /><br />EPA employees stand to see some of the most drastic changes under the Trump administration, and they may be taking things a bit harder than other government workers.<br /><br />The president-elect has vowed to repeal some of the rules they've toiled on for the last eight years during the Obama administration, including the Clean Power Plan rule to cut power plants' greenhouse gas emissions.<br /><br />Trump has even suggested abolishing the agency entirely, although that would be an uphill political climb. Trump has picked a top climate change skeptic to lead his EPA transition team — Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute — and has promised sweeping reforms in the agency that's long been a target for industry groups and Republicans who say its rules overreach.<br /><br />"If you look at the seven stages of grief, I'm still in denial. I will not look at the news. I will not read the news," said an EPA career employee.<br /><br />Another EPA staffer said, "I don't actually know anybody here that was supporting Trump." That person said people are "worried" that their work over the last eight years will be unraveled. "It's always a time of uncertainty" when a new administration comes in, the employee said, and there were fears when the George W. Bush administration came into office, too. But "people are more worried this time," the person added.<br /><br />Silvia Saracco, head of a union chapter that represents EPA employees in North Carolina's Research Triangle Park, said, "There is a lot of angst out there, nervousness."<br /><br />Some DOE employees are feeling glum, too.<br /><br />"I think it's a sadness and a worry about just how far someone will go, especially when you never believe anything he says," said one longtime Energy Department employee. "Many of us have worked in both the Bush and the Obama administrations, and I don't think that we feel like it will be like just going back to Bush again."<br /><br />The DOE employee added, "We know that now more than ever, it is important to do whatever we can to do a good job in the areas that we care about. ... What we can do is not lose sight of whatever ideals brought us to this work in the first place."<br /><br />One Fish and Wildlife Service employee witnessed "business as usual" after the election, although, "obviously, there was some surprise."<br /><br />Most federal employees "will work for whomever is elected," that person said. "That's just part of what I've always believed, that we should not be extremely emotional about it, certainly not in our public life."<br /><br />Mass exodus?<br /><br />There's been speculation that many of Trump's critics in the federal workforce might opt to leave or retire early.<br /><br />"If [Trump] starts doing rotten things, then people will say, 'Enough of this crap,'" said O'Grady. "You might see retirements from people who say, 'Why bother working there anyway?'"<br /><br />Saracco worked at EPA during the Reagan administration. "There was a big exodus" then, she said.<br /><br />Several also noted that EPA has an aging workforce like other government agencies — about 31 percent of the federal workforce is eligible to retire. In addition, according to this year's Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, 3.57 percent of EPA employees plan to retire within the year, while another 10.76 percent plan to retire within one to three years.<br /><br />"Whenever there is a change of administration, career officials that are retirement eligible take stock and decide what to do next, even if you agree with the party coming in," said Joe Edgell, senior vice president of National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280, which also represents EPA employees.<br /><br />"Do I think a lot of people are going to retire? Well, yeah," Edgell said. "Could it be higher than normal? We have to see what happens."<br /><br />Government workers have expressed worry about a Trump victory in the past. A poll by the Government Business Council released earlier this year found that 14 percent of responding federal employees said they would consider leaving government service if the GOP nominee won, while another 11 percent answered "maybe" (Greenwire, Feb. 1).<br /><br />By and large, agency employees say they and their colleagues are planning to stick around — at least for a while.<br /><br />"They're going to try to work from within as much as possible and do their job," Saracco said. "That's what we're supposed to do as civil servants, ... not have people who politically are going back and forth."<br /><br />She's been trying to console worried workers by reminding them that they've lived through changing administrations before.<br /><br />"We all have to keep in mind that we are federal employees, we swear allegiance to the Constitution, and we are executive branch employees. Whoever wins the election is who gives us the direction that we're to go in. That's our job," Saracco said.<br /><br />She also cautioned that it isn't clear yet what exactly a Trump administration will do in office.<br /><br />"There's a lot of rhetoric that takes place on the campaign trail. We all have to remember that," she said. "Let's not assume we know. We need to see what's going to happen."<br /><br />EPA managers have stressed to staff to stay professional and work with Trump's transition team. In an agencywide email after the election, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy emphasized that there should be a smooth transition<br /><br />After Trump's inauguration in January, "I will be coming to work and continue to be paid for the work that I do," said the career EPA employee. "Whether I like it, whether they like it, that remains to be seen."<br /><br />Another EPA career employee said the agency has been able to function under prior Republican administrations.<br /><br />"We have been through Reagan, got through [George W. Bush]. We will get through this."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060045642">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Defy 'Stalinist' global warming rules and burn much more coal, says Trump's key economic adviser</b><br /><br />Regulations on climate change are ‘Stalinistic’. And America can earn more than $100billion from global companies by cutting their tax rates.<br /><br />If this sounds like the extreme rhetoric of America’s President-elect Donald Trump, that’s because they are the words of his senior economic adviser, Stephen Moore.<br /><br />A former adviser to the Reagan administration, Moore has the ear of ‘The Donald’ on economic issues.<br /><br />Speaking to The Mail on Sunday just hours after Trump’s election victory, he outlined a vision for the US and world economy that will fuel fury among critics, but may also calm fears that the planet’s biggest economy may be about to close its doors on the world. And there was good news for Britain as he hailed the idea of a US-UK trade deal.<br /><br />As well as having worked for Reagan when he was only in his 20s, Moore has sat on the board of the Wall Street Journal and is chief economist for the US think-tank the Heritage Foundation.<br /><br />And he is in no doubt that the rest of the world will be affected by Trump’s Presidency. ‘If we get it wrong, the whole world gets it wrong,’ he declares. ‘But I think this is going to be like the 1980s. We are going to get it right. And the rest of the world will follow. Britain and France and Spain and other nations will say, “Ah, that’s what you do! You cut taxes. You get regulations off the back of business.”<br /><br />‘This could be the start of an expansion like we saw in the 1980s and 1990s – the greatest period of wealth creation and poverty reduction in the history of mankind.’<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3930382/Defy-Stalinist-global-warming-rules-burn-coal-says-Trump-s-key-economic-adviser.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Washington State voters reject carbon tax</b><br /><br />Washington voters gave an overwhelming thumbs down Tuesday to a citizen initiative to impose a direct tax on carbon emissions. But that doesn’t look to be the end of the story on regulating global warming pollution at the state level.<br /><br />With much of the vote now tallied in Washington state, the nation’s first voter initiative to create a carbon tax is going down 59 to 41 percent. The campaign director for the opposition to Initiative 732 said the discussion on climate and energy policy is not over in the state.<br /><br />“We believe that we have an obligation to act and to do what is right,” said Brandon Houskeeper from the Association of Washington Business. “The question is how do we come up with a pathway that is commensurate with Washington’s contribution to a global problem. I think it requires us having a broad table.”<br /><br />In the short term, the action shifts to the courtroom. Industry associations are hoping to strike down separate Inslee administration global warming pollution regulations. The main feature of the state’s new Clean Air Rule is a gradually tightening cap on emissions from the state’s biggest sources.<br /><br />Further down the road, another initiative that taxes carbon pollution is a possibility, but an alliance behind that said in a statement Wednesday that it will first take a stab at passing something through the 2017 Washington Legislature.<br /><br />The labor and environmental group-backed Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy posted a summary of a revised legislative proposal Tuesday. It would put an escalating price on carbon emissions and use the proceeds to support alternative energy projects as well as “investments” to mitigate effects of climate change on forests and vulnerable communities.<br /><br />“With everything else the legislature has on its plate … the climate proposal will face an uphill battle,” Washington Environmental Council President Becky Kelley acknowledged.<br /><br />But in light of the election of climate change skeptic Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, “State level action is where it’s going to be at,” Kelley said.<br /><br />If there were to be another ballot measure, Washington State Labor Council President Jeff Johnson said he would target the general election two years hence. “2017 would be nearly impossible to pull off,” Johnson said in an interview. “2018 is more appropriate time wise.”<br /><br />“It’s a dark moment for the climate landscape,” said state Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, a Democrat from Seattle, reflecting on the election fallout Wednesday. In a subsequent email, Fitzgibbon shed some of his glumness.<br /><br />“Voters have shown, by reelecting Gov. Inslee and electing a pro-climate action majority in the (state) House, that we are ready for climate action in Washington,” Fitzgibbon wrote.<br /><br />“Carbon Washington will continue as an organization,” said Joe Ryan, co-chair of the group that sponsored the failed Initiative 732. “Our grassroots base is our strength. We are energized to continue our work on carbon pricing in the state legislature, and to promote effective, equitable, economically sound and politically viable carbon pricing in other states and in Washington, D.C.”<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ktoo.org/2016/11/12/washington-voters-reject-carbon-tax-but-battle-over-global-warming-continues/">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-56459757738192755872016-11-13T01:46:00.000+13:002016-11-13T01:50:44.069+13:00<br /><br /><b>Behind the Furious Green/Left protests at the Trump triumph</b><br /><br />The screaming will get louder. The Greenies know full well that the Trump win means that we have bought 8 or more years of time to study Climate Change. The truth will be determined and it will not be too late to react if indeed the world has to do something to counter Climate Change.<br /><br />Many of the pundits screaming for CO2 reductions will be gone, having given up or dead. This world wide movement to suppress the expansion of wealthy, healthy countries will end. Cheap available energy is the single most important element to the reduction of poverty.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Why the death of coral reefs could be devastating for millions of humans</b><br /><br /><i>It certainly would be detrimental, though well within the human capacity to adapt. &nbsp;But will it happen? Coral recovers quickly from bleaching and at Bikini atoll it even survived a thermonuclear hit on it! &nbsp;If an H-bomb didn't kill it off, what would? Coral reefs have been around for millions of years and in some cases are today right where they always were.<br /><br />They are however surrounded by Green/Left lies. &nbsp;Australian Greenies claim that reef damage is caused by agricultural runoff. &nbsp;Problem: &nbsp;The current bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef is on its Northern third, along the coast of the Cape York Peninsula &nbsp;-- and there are virtually no farms there. &nbsp;Isn't reality pesky?<br /><br />Coral does undergo bleaching from time to time in response to various stressors but bleaching is a defence mechanism, not death.<br /><br />And even the first sentence below is a laugh. &nbsp;Oceans CANNOT be both warmer and more acidic at the same time. &nbsp;Warmer oceans outgas CO2, which is the alleged cause of the acidity. Just open a warm can of Coke someday if you doubt it. Physicists call it Henry's law. &nbsp;There's no such thing as an honest Greenie as far as I can see. &nbsp;You believe anything they say at your peril<br /><br /></i><br />Coral reefs around the globe already are facing unprecedented damage due to warmer and more acidic oceans. It’s not a problem that just affects the marine life that depends on them or deep-sea divers who visit them.<br /><br />If carbon dioxide emissions continue to fuel the planet’s rising temperature, the widespread loss of coral reefs by 2050 could have devastating consequences for tens of millions of people, according to research published Wednesday in the scientific journal PLOS.<br /><br />To better understand where those losses would hit hardest, an international group of researchers mapped places where people most need reefs for their livelihoods, particularly for fishing and tourism, as well as for shoreline protection. They combined those maps with others showing where coral reefs are most under stress from warming seas and ocean acidification.<br /><br />Countries in Southeast Asia such as Indonesia, Thailand, and Philippines would bear the brunt of the damage, the scientists found. So would coastal communities in western Mexico and parts of Australia, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. The problem would affect countries as massive as China and as small as the tiny island nation of Nauru in the South Pacific.<br /><br />In many places, the loss of coral reefs would amount to an economic disaster, depriving fishermen of their main source of income, forcing people to find more expensive forms of protein, and undermining the tourism industry.<br /><br />"It means jobs for lots of people," said Linwood Pendleton, the study’s lead author and an international chair at the European Institute of Marine Studies.<br /><br />In addition, many countries depend on coral reefs as a key barrier to guard against incoming storms and mitigate the damage done by surging seas. Without healthy reefs, "you lose what is essentially a moving, undersea sea wall," said Pendleton, who estimated that about 62 million people live less than 33 feet above sea level and less than two miles from a coral reef. "The waves just come into shore full force. That can cause loss of life. It can cause loss of property."<br /><br />Some of the countries most dependent on coral reefs are also among the largest polluters.<br /><br />"Some of the places that have the most to lose . . . are also among the biggest carbon emitters," Pendleton said. "They really have it in their power to bring down the levels of carbon" they emit into the atmosphere.<br /><br />Other countries that rely heavily on reefs, such as Fiji or Papua New Guinea, have relatively small carbon footprints. Still, Pendleton said they can take other measures — including not overfishing and avoiding pollution — to prevent putting further pressure on already stressed reefs.<br /><br />The researchers acknowledged more study is needed to better understand both what is happening to coral reefs around the globe and how that will affect humans. But it can be difficult, they noted, because "carrying out science and data collection in many of the coral reef regions most at risk of global environmental change is a challenge." Many regions lack the capacity to do routine data collection, and scientists often have trouble getting permission to sample in coastal areas or where maritime jurisdictions are disputed.<br /><br />While coral reefs traditionally have been resilient in the face of environmental pressures, mounting evidence suggests their ability to bounce back is limited.<br /><br />This fall, scientists reported that substantial swaths of the Great Barrier Reef — the world’s largest coral reef system, located off Australia —might have died in the wake of a historic coral-bleaching event.<br /><br />"The mortality is really devastating," Andrew Hoey, a senior research fellow with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University in Queensland, told the Post last month as scientists worked to catalog the damage. "It’s a lot higher than we had hoped."<br /><br />Earlier This spring, researchers discovered that parts of Florida’s coral reef tract — the largest reef in the continental United States and the third-largest barrier reef ecosystem in the world — are actually dissolving into the water, likely because of the effects of ocean acidification.<br /><br />Meanwhile, reefs around the US territory of Guam and other nearby islands, in what is known as the Marianas archipelago, have suffered from coral-bleaching events every year since 2013.<br /><br />And there’s been no sign of a break this summer. After a recent dive in Guam’s Tumon Bay, coral ecologist Laurie Raymundo took to Facebook to describe her shock at the devastation.<br /><br />"I consider myself to be fairly objective and logical about science," wrote Raymundo, of the University of Guam. "But sometimes that approach fails me. Today, for the first time in the 50 years I’ve been in the water, I cried for an hour, right into my mask, as I witnessed the extent to which our lovely Tumon Bay corals were bleaching and dying."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2016/11/09/why-death-coral-reefs-could-devastating-for-millions-humans/jxA4vBLwBDsQSpMRR2VLSL/story.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Trump win opens way for China to take climate leadership role (?)</b><br /><br /><i>This is a lot of wishful thinking. &nbsp;China will do what is in the best interests of China: Nothing more, nothing less. &nbsp;China's apparent agreement with global warming in recent years is a clever game. &nbsp;What just about ALL Chinese want is a reduction in particulate and acidic pollution. &nbsp;And to get there the best way is to reduce reliance on coal and build nukes instead -- which is what China is doing.<br /><br />So China harvests good will by doing what the Greenies want -- reducing coal usage -- but doing it for Chinese reasons, not Greenie reasons. &nbsp;Any CO2 reduction is in fact completely incidental to China's policy. &nbsp;Reducing coal usage fits Chinese aims and just coincidentally fits Greenie aims<br /></i><br /><br />The election of climate change skeptic Donald Trump as president is likely to end the U.S. leadership role in the international fight against global warming and may lead to the emergence of a new and unlikely champion: China.<br /><br />China worked closely with the administration of outgoing President Barack Obama to build momentum ahead of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. The partnership of the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters helped get nearly 200 countries to support the pact at the historic meet in France's capital.<br /><br />By contrast, Trump has called global warming a hoax created by China to give it an economic advantage and said he plans to remove the United States from the historic climate agreement, as well as reverse many of Obama's measures to combat climate change.<br /><br />He has appointed noted climate change skeptic Myron Ebell to help lead transition planning for the Environmental Protection Agency, which has crafted the administration’s major environmental regulations such as the Clean Power Plan and efficiency standards for cars and trucks.<br /><br />Beijing is poised to cash in on the goodwill it could earn by taking on leadership in dealing with what for many other governments is one of the most urgent issues on their agenda.<br /><br />"Proactively taking action against climate change will improve China's international image and allow it to occupy the moral high ground," Zou Ji, deputy director of the National Centre for Climate Change Strategy and a senior Chinese climate talks negotiator, told Reuters.<br /><br />Zou said that if Trump abandons efforts to implement the Paris agreement, "China's influence and voice are likely to increase in global climate governance, which will then spill over into other areas of global governance and increase China's global standing, power and leadership."<br /><br />Chen Zhihua, a representative of the Chinese delegation and official in the climate change division of the National Development and Reform Commission, the country's economic planning agency, said Chinese and other countries' efforts will not change if the United States withdraws from the agreement.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange-idUSKBN1360DK">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Donald Trump Follows on Promise to Gut the Environmental Protection Agency With His Choice of Transition Leader</b><br /><br /><i>Fabulous. &nbsp;Ebell is as good a skeptic as you get</i><br /><br />In debates and speeches leading up to the election, President-elect Donald Trump had promised to “get rid of [the Environmental Protection Agency] in almost every form” and to “cancel” the United States’ commitment to the international Paris Agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. signed the Paris Agreement earlier this year.<br /><br />Now that he’s won, how serious is Trump about accomplishing these goals? In his pick to lead the administration transition for the EPA— unearthed in September by Energy &amp; Environment Daily—it seems he’s intent on keeping his word. Trump chose Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Here’s how Energy &amp; Environment Daily describes him:<br /><br />Ebell is a well-known and polarizing figure in the energy and environment realm. His participation in the EPA transition signals that the Trump team is looking to drastically reshape the climate policies the agency has pursued under the Obama administration. Ebell’s role is likely to infuriate environmentalists and Democrats but buoy critics of Obama’s climate rules.<br /><br />Ebell, who was dubbed an “elegant nerd” and a “policy wonk” by Vanity Fair, is known for his prolific writings that question what he calls climate change “alarmism.” …<br /><br />Ebell has called the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan for greenhouse gases illegal and said that Obama joining the Paris climate treaty “is clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the Senate’s authority.”<br /><br />Trump has also chosen Ebell’s counterparts for the Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior, Energy &amp; Environment Daily reports.<br /><br />Mike McKenna, a Republican lobbyist and veteran of George H.W. Bush’s Department of Energy, will assist Trump. David Bernhardt, a natural resources lawyer who has worked in the George W. Bush administration, will transition the Department of the Interior.<br /><br /><a href="https://psmag.com/donald-trump-follows-on-promise-to-gut-the-environmental-protection-agency-with-his-choice-of-63049ffdae6f">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Is EPA's Clean Power Plan "Transformative"?</b><br /><br />In an October 31st &nbsp;letter to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, National Mining Association attorney Peter Glaser provides new evidence that “EPA far understated the effects of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) by exaggerating the amount of coal generation that will retire even without the rule.” Ironically, the smoking gun is the agency’s own updated modeling, albeit for a different regulation—the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).<br /><br />Glaser’s argument may be summarized as follows:<br /><br />The Environmental Protection Agency’s “base case” (the future absent the CPP) indicated that “in 2016, 20 percent of U.S. coal capacity would disappear even if the rule were not adopted, reducing coal generation to 214 gigawatts (GW).”<br /><br />However, the agency’s just-published CSAPR Update eliminates the “phantom retirements” assumed in the CPP base case. Agency modeling “now shows 268 GW of coal generation for 2016.”<br /><br />EPA is now pretty much on the same page as the Energy Information Administration (EIA), which recently reported 272 GW of coal generation in service as of August 2016.<br /><br />EPA estimates coal generation “must decline to 174-183 GW to meet CPP requirements.”<br /><br />That means coal capacity must decline by “about one third.”<br />The new data confirm Obama administration boasts—denied, however, in EPA’s briefs before the Court—that the CPP “will transform the power sector.”<br /><br />For links and documentation, see my post on GlobalWarming.Org. For a witty debunking of EPA’s fuzzy math, see Stephen Eule’s commentary on the Institute for 21st Century Energy blog.<br /><br />Why does this matter? At the outset of the CPP oral argument, Judge Thomas Griffith challenged West Virginia Solicitor General Elbert Lin to explain why the CPP is “transformative.” The term harks back to the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014), a case also dealing with the scope of EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2).<br /><br />In Utility Air, the Court ruled that EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule was “unreasonable because it would it would bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.” There is obviously no clear congressional authorization for the Power Plan, but Griffith and his colleague Judge David Tatel suggested the absence of a “clear statement” by Congress is irrelevant unless the CPP is “transformative.”<br /><br />Judge Griffith cited EPA’s estimate that the Power Plan would reduce coal generation “only &nbsp;. . . &nbsp;five percent” below baseline projections:<br /><br />How is it transformative when the change to the coal industry will actually only be a five percent difference between the rule being administered and there being no rule at all? By 2030, apparently 32 percent of power plants will be coal operated without the rule, 27 percent will be coal operated with the rule; that hardly sounds transformative [p. 6].<br /><br />Glaser’s letter provides a partial rejoinder. EPA’s current modeling indicates the CPP will shut down an additional 11-13 percent of current coal generation capacity, more than double what the agency told the court.<br /><br />However, Griffith was dismissive when Mr. Lin, citing EIA modeling, argued the Power Plan would reduce coal capacity by 10 percent below baseline projections: “[Y]ou’re talking about a marginal difference, some experts say a five percent difference, your experts say 10 percent difference, by 2030, that doesn’t seem to me to be transformative.”<br /><br />With all due respect, Judges Griffith and Tatel miss the point. To begin with, an unauthorized regulation does not have to be “transformative” to be unlawful. “Transformative” just makes an “unauthorized” rulemaking a more egregious case of bureaucratic overreach. Any legislative rule lacking an express or clearly implied delegation of power from Congress is unlawful.<br /><br />In the second place, a rule need not have large short-term material or financial impacts to be “transformative.” Far more important are the rule’s lasting impacts on national policy, the economy, and constitutional balances.<br /><br />In Utility Air, the Court elaborated on the meaning of “transformative” as follows:<br /><br />When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate “a significant portion of the American economy,” Brown &amp; Williamson, 529 U. S., at 159, we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast “economic and political signifi­cance.”<br /><br />EPA’s adoption of the Power Plan is clearly a matter of vast “economic and political significance.” For starters, the CPP is not just a rule, it is a regulatory framework. The 2022-2030 CPP compliance period is just Phase 1. Subsequent rulemakings will surely marginalize if not eliminate fossil generation. As petitioners point out in their core issues reply brief (p. 7), “EPA claims the power to require States to enforce emission reductions that are premised on changing the nation’s mix of electric generation—a power that would permit EPA to effectively ban the sources of generation it disfavors.”<br /><br />That assessment is not alarmist. The CPP’s prerequisite rulemaking, EPA’s so-called “carbon pollution standards” for new power plants, effectively bans investment in new coal generation. It does so by basing the standards on a technology—carbon capture and storage—that is prohibitively costly and plagued with technical problems. EPA acknowledges the CPP’s current requirements will have no discernible climate impact. That obviously implies the need for more aggressive action down the road.<br /><br />So the transformative character of the CPP should not be assessed by coal market shares in 2030. What matters is the precedent it sets, the policy dynamic it unleashes, and the economic developments the new policy trajectory permits and precludes. Under the CPP, coercive de-carbonization becomes the central organizing principle of federal and state regulation of electricity. Is that not a momentous change in national policy? The CPP as a framework will channel and constrain untold billions of dollars in energy-related investment. <br /><br />The CPP also entails a fundamental shift in political power from Congress and the states to EPA. The CPP mandates the replacement of fossil energy with renewables regardless of the policy preferences of Congress, state legislatures, governors, and state electorates. The rule usurps states’ authority over power-sector resource planning and development and Congress’s authority to determine national policy on energy and the environment. A rule that undermines both federalism and the separation of powers is by definition “transformative.”<br /><br /><a href="https://cei.org/blog/epas-clean-power-plan-transformative">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Nobody really takes global warming seriously</b><br /><br /><i>A partly realistic Warmist writes below</i><br /><br />One of the morbidly fascinating aspects of climate change is how much cognitive dissonance it generates, in individuals and nations alike.<br /><br />The more you understand the brutal logic of climate change — what it could mean, the effort necessary to forestall it — the more the intensity of the situation seems out of whack with the workaday routines of day-to-day life. It’s a species-level emergency, but almost no one is acting like it is. And it’s very, very difficult to be the only one acting like there’s an emergency, especially when the emergency is abstract and science-derived, grasped primarily by the intellect.<br /><br />This psychological schism is true for individuals, and it’s true for nations. Take the Paris climate agreement.<br /><br />In Paris, in 2015, the countries of the world agreed (again) on the moral imperative to hold the rise in global average temperature to under 2 degrees Celsius, and to pursue "efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees." To date, 62 countries, including the United States, China, and India, have ratified the agreement.<br /><br />Are any of the countries that signed the Paris agreement taking the actions necessary to achieve that target?<br /><br />No. The US is not. Nor is the world as a whole.<br /><br />The actions necessary to hold to 2 degrees, much less 1.5 degrees, are simply outside the bounds of conventional politics in most countries. Anyone who proposed them would sound crazy, like they were proposing, I don’t know, a war or something.<br /><br />So we say 2 degrees is unacceptable. But we don’t act like it is.<br /><br />This cognitive dissonance is brought home yet again in a new report from Oil Change International (in collaboration with a bunch of green groups). It’s about fossil fuels and how much of them we can afford to dig up and burn, if we’re serious about what we said in Paris. It’s mostly simple math, but the implications are vast and unsettling.<br /><br />Let’s start from the beginning.<br /><br />Scientists have long agreed that warming higher than 2 degrees will result in widespread food, water, weather, and sea level stresses, with concomitant immigration, conflict, and suffering, inequitably distributed.<br /><br />But 2 degrees is not some magic threshold where tolerable becomes dangerous. A two-year review of the latest science by the UNFCCC found that the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees means heat extremes, water shortages, and falling crop yields. "The ‘guardrail’ concept, in which up to 2°C of warming is considered safe," the review concluded, "is inadequate."<br /><br />The report recommends that 2 degrees be seen instead as "an upper limit, a defense line that needs to be stringently defended, while less warming would be preferable."<br /><br />This changing understanding of 2 degrees matters, because the temperature target we choose, and the probability with which we aim to hit it, establishes our "carbon budget," i.e., the amount of CO2 we can still emit before blowing it.<br /><br />Many commonly used scenarios (including the International Energy Agency’s) are built around a 50 percent chance of hitting 2 degrees. But if 2 degrees is an "upper limit" and "less warming would be preferable," it seems we would want a higher than 50-50 chance of stopping short of it.<br /><br />So the authors of the Oil Change report choose two scenarios to model. One gives us a 66 percent chance of stopping short of 2 degrees. The other gives us a 50 percent chance of stopping short of 1.5 degrees.<br /><br />As you can see, in either scenario, global emissions must peak and begin declining immediately. For a medium chance to avoid 1.5 degrees, the world has to zero out net carbon emissions by 2050 or so — for a good chance of avoiding 2 degrees, by around 2065.<br /><br />After that, emissions have to go negative. Humanity has to start burying a lot more carbon than it throws up into the atmosphere. There are several ways to sequester greenhouse gases, from reforestation to soil enrichment to cow backpacks, but the backbone of the envisioned negative emissions is BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration.<br /><br />BECCS — raising, harvesting, and burning biomass for energy, while capturing and burying the carbon emissions — is unproven at scale. Thus far, most demonstration plants of any size attaching CCS to fossil fuel facilities have been over-budget disasters. What if we can’t rely on it? What if it never pans out?<br /><br />"If we want to avoid depending on unproven technology becoming available," the authors say, "emissions would need to be reduced even more rapidly."<br /><br />There’s no happy win-win story about that scenario, no way to pull it off while continuing to live US lifestyles and growing the global economy every year. It would require immediate, radical shifts in behavior worldwide, especially among the wealthy — a period of voluntary austerity and contraction.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fossil-fuels">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-87983475970289234212016-11-11T01:33:00.001+13:002016-11-11T01:33:51.901+13:00<br /><br /><b>Climate change may be escalating so fast it could be 'game over', scientists warn</b><br /><br /><i>All that this shows is that if you make extreme assumptions you will get extreme results. I have added the journal abstract to the summary below. &nbsp;Once again we see a reliance on the 8.5 Representative Concentration Pathway -- meaning that the most extreme estimate of CO2 in the atmosphere was used. &nbsp;So it's basically just guesswork</i><br /><br />It is a vision of a future so apocalyptic that it is hard to even imagine.<br /><br />But, if leading scientists writing in one of the most respected academic journals are right, planet Earth could be on course for global warming of more than seven degrees Celsius within a lifetime.<br /><br />And that, according to one of the world’s most renowned climatologists, could be “game over” – particularly given the imminent presence of climate change denier Donald Trump in the White House.<br /><br />Scientists have long tried to work out how the climate will react over the coming decades to the greenhouse gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere.<br /><br />According to the current best estimate, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if humans carry on with a “business as usual” approach using large amounts of fossil fuels, the Earth’s average temperature will rise by between 2.6 and 4.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100.<br /><br />However new research by an international team of experts who looked into how the Earth’s climate has reacted over nearly 800,000 years warns this could be a major under-estimate.<br /><br />Because, they believe, the climate is more sensitive to greenhouse gases when it is warmer.<br /><br />In a paper in the journal Science Advances, they said the actual range could be between 4.78C to 7.36C by 2100, based on one set of calculations.<br /><br />Some have dismissed the idea that the world would continue to burn fossil fuels despite obvious global warming, but emissions are still increasing despite a 1C rise in average thermometer readings since the 1880s.<br /><br />And US President-elect Donald Trump has said he will rip up America’s commitments to the fight against climate change.<br /><br />Professor Michael Mann, of Penn State University in the US, who led research that produced the famous “hockey stick” graph showing how humans were dramatically increasing the Earth’s temperature, told The Independent the new paper appeared "sound and the conclusions quite defensible".<br /><br />Dr Tobias Friedrich, one of the authors of the paper, said: “Our results imply that the Earth’s sensitivity to variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide increases as the climate warms.<br /><br />“Currently, our planet is in a warm phase – an interglacial period – and the associated increased climate sensitivity needs to be taken into account for future projections of warming induced by human activities.<br /><br />“The only way out is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.”<br /><br />Dr Andrey Ganopolski, who was involved in the research and on the IPCC’s latest report, admitted their work was controversial with some scientists disagreeing and others agreeing with their findings.<br /><br />“In our field of science, you cannot be definite by 100 per cent. There are always uncertainties and we discuss this in the paper,” he said.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-game-over-global-warming-climate-sensitivity-seven-degrees-a7407881.html">SOURCE</a><br /><br />Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming<br /><br />Abstract<br /><br />Global mean surface temperatures are rising in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The magnitude of this warming at equilibrium for a given radiative forcing—referred to as specific equilibrium climate sensitivity (S)—is still subject to uncertainties. We estimate global mean temperature variations and S using a 784,000-year-long field reconstruction of sea surface temperatures and a transient paleoclimate model simulation. Our results reveal that S is strongly dependent on the climate background state, with significantly larger values attained during warm phases. Using the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 for future greenhouse radiative forcing, we find that the range of paleo-based estimates of Earth’s future warming by 2100 CE overlaps with the upper range of climate simulations conducted as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). Furthermore, we find that within the 21st century, global mean temperatures will very likely exceed maximum levels reconstructed for the last 784,000 years. On the basis of temperature data from eight glacial cycles, our results provide an independent validation of the magnitude of current CMIP5 warming projections.<br /><br /><a href="http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923">Science Advances &nbsp;09 Nov 2016: Vol. 2, no. 11, e1501923. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1501923</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>‘JUST SCRAP’ OBAMA’S ENERGY RULES, TRUMP ADVISER SAYS</b><br /><br />The man that Donald Trump calls the “king of energy” in the U.S. predicts quick action by the next president to roll back Obama administration policies opposed by the oil and natural gas industry.<br /><br />“There are so many of them. You just scrap them,” Harold Hamm, the billionaire CEO of Continental Resources, said Wednesday, hours after Trump’s surprising win over Democrat Hillary Clinton.<br /><br />“There’s five times the regulation on our industry than there was before the Obama administration,” Hamm said in an interview. “I mean, it’s just been a pile-on.”<br /><br />Among the policies opposed by Hamm and other producers is a proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency to curb emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide, from oil and gas operations.<br /><br />“It’s like we’re out to pollute the world with methane gas,” Hamm complained, disputing assertions by advocates of the policy that the industry hasn’t done enough to capture the emissions.<br /><br />“That’s not the case,” he said. “It’s never been the case.”<br /><br />That’s just one of many energy policies that Trump, a climate skeptic, could target quickly using his executive authority, ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington consulting group, said in a note Wednesday.<br /><br />For example, the Trump administration could come to the rescue of two controversial oil pipeline projects, including granting an easement to the Dakota Access pipeline, a $3.7 billion project that would carry crude oil from North Dakota, where Continental Resources is a major player, to an Illinois refinery.<br /><br />The project is stalled in North Dakota in the face of opposition by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its supporters, who say the project would destroy ancient tribal artifacts and potentially pollute waterways.<br /><br />Likewise, Trump’s administration could approve a new cross-border permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, a TransCanada Corp. initiative to ship oil from Canada to the U.S. that Obama rejected last year.<br /><br />Other potential pro-industry actions at the disposal of the new administration include resuming periodic oil and gas leasing on federal lands, revising or abandoning Energy Department requirements for exporting liquefied natural gas and suspending Securities and Exchange Commission rules requiring companies to disclose risks posed by climate change, according to ClearView.<br /><br />“People are going to use oil and gas,” Hamm said. “So, if we don’t develop our own, you’re back on foreign oil.”<br /><br />As for oil price prices, Hamm expects “stability” as Trump aims to open more federal land and offshore waters to drilling, curb regulations and support exports of U.S. crude.<br /><br />As Hamm spoke, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil was on a rollercoaster ride, falling 2.6% to $43.80 a barrel just after midnight Wednesday, then rising 4.2% to $45.67 at noon.<br /><br />Hamm’s remarks come as speculation continues that he may be a candidate for energy secretary in the Trump administration.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thegwpf.com/just-scrap-obamas-energy-rules-trump-adviser-says/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Trump Victory Threatens Green Investors And Subsidy Sharks</b><br /><br />Republican victories in Tuesday’s election inject new risks into investments in sustainable energy and clean tech companies, according to one top analyst.<br /><br />“[Donald] Trump’s surprise victory last night, in tandem with Republicans maintaining majority control of both houses of Congress, constitutes in our view a material negative for the majority of our stocks under coverage,” said Oppenheimer analyst Colin Rusch, in a research note Wednesday.<br /><br />Rusch covers a number of solar energy firms, companies that develop technologies for energy efficiency, waste and recycling companies, as well as alternative transportation companies such as Tesla.<br /><br />“We expect shares broadly to trade off today at higher magnitude than equity indices and believe the election outcome injects significant policy uncertainty into the growth outlook for multiple verticals, with solar/alternative transportation plays the most impacted,” Rusch said in the note.<br /><br />Elsewhere, Rusch’s outlook is likewise not uniformly negative, but he identifies a few policy issues that could pose trouble for some of the companies he covers.<br /><br />First, the election places the Clean Power Plan at risk. A Trump presidency and Republican control of Congress could lead to a rollback of the plan, adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2014, as a means to combat climate change by limiting emissions from power plants. Rolling back the CPP could pose “contagion risk to global renewable and energy efficiency investments,” Rusch’s note said.<br /><br />Trump has repeatedly expressed skepticism over climate change, once famously calling it a Chinese hoax designed to undermine U.S. manufacturing.<br /><br />Along these lines, Rusch and his colleagues said they “would not be surprised to see a Trump administration attempt to block federal support for EV buyers but could provide support for companies such as TSLA that are creating US manufacturing jobs.”<br /><br />Tesla shares were recently trading down more than 4 percent, at $186.38.<br /><br />Rusch’s concerns are particularly striking, given the fact that Tesla Chairman and CEO (and SolarCity Chairman) Elon Musk said in an interview with CNBC on Nov. 4 that he did not think the outcome of the election would “make much of a difference one way or the other” to Tesla’s business.<br /><br />Residential solar power companies could face a more challenging regulatory climate as well as weakened demand due to greater support for coal power. This could have implications for companies such as First Solar and SunPower, as well as others.<br /><br />Solar stocks also were lower Wednesday with SolarCity down 5.7 percent, First Solar down 2.7 percent and SunPower shedding nearly 15 percent.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thegwpf.com/trump-victory-threatens-green-investors-and-subsidy-sharks/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Trump Victory: Shock And Disbelief At Marrakech UN Climate Talks</b><br /><br />MARRAKECH (MOROCCO): Daylight broke in the ochre city with the news of Donald Trump’s decisive victory in the US elections. Trump’s victory came as a shock to most, who were prepared for a tight race with the expectation that Secretary Hillary Clinton would make it to the finish line with a slim margin.<br /><br />Shock and disbelief marked Bab Ighli, the venue of the UN-sponsored climate meet. Even as delegates sought to retain an air of normalcy virtually every conversation turned to Trump, and what the elevation of a climate denier to the White House meant for the global efforts to tackle climate change.<br /><br />Throughout his campaign, Trump repudiated climate change. He described it as a Chinese hoax, denied the science, described climate change funding as wasteful. While candidate Trump has been categorical about his views on climate change, it is unclear if as president he will follow through. Observers from the United States and other countries stressed that it was too soon to say what the Trump Administration would do.<br /><br />This isn’t diplomatic sidestepping of the question. The fact is that it is too early to determine what President-elect Trump will do.<br /><br />He could well follow through on his promise to pull out from the Paris Agreement, but since the treaty is already in force, the United States is locked in for three years, with another year or so for the process of withdrawal from the treaty. Observers at Marrakech have consistently stressed that US participation in the Paris Agreement is guaranteed for what would be the first term of a Trump presidency.<br /><br />While the US would continue to be a party to the Paris Agreement, its participation in the process of finalising the rulebook for the treaty would change. Some delegates stressed therefore it was important to agree at Marrakech to complete the rule making process by 2018.<br /><br />The other cause of concern is the US contribution to climate finance. Trump has said that he would “cancel billions in climate change spending for the United Nations”. The US pledged $3 billion over a four year period to the Green Climate Fund. So far only $500 million has been provided. Republican lawmakers had objected to the pledge made by the Obama administration, arguing that it wasn’t legal as it was done without specific congressional authorization. Providing financial support is one of the key commitments of industrialised countries under the UN Convention on Climate Change, has been reiterated in the Paris Agreement. The Green Climate Fund was set up to help developing countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.<br /><br />The other cause of concern is in the area of domestic policies. Domestic climate action lies at the heart of the Paris Agreement. This could well mean a reversal of many of the decisions, most of which were carried out through executive orders, of the Obama administration. The Clean Power Plan, which is central to the US national climate action plan. This could well mean that the US doesn’t adhere to commitments made in the national climate action plans under the Paris Agreement, and this would make it difficult to meet the goal of restricting temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thegwpf.com/trump-victory-shock-and-disbelief-at-marrakech-un-climate-talks/">SOURCE</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>EPA wants your wood-burning stove</b><br /><br />In a blow to innovation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has denied a petition to reconsider a restrictive regulation dealing with wood stoves and the types of wood burned in them.obama-net-neutrality-fcc-title-ii-100529803-primary.idge<br /><br />The regulation, finalized by the EPA last year, made changes to the emission standards applicable to residential wood stoves, in bureaucratic speak, “residential wood combustion devices.”<br /><br />The petition was filed by Richard S. Burns &amp; Company, Inc., a Philadelphia waste management firm that challenged the EPA’s prohibition on making wood pellets and chipped wood from the “clean wood” which is removed from construction sites. The EPA’s regulation does not allow clean wood from “construction or demolition” to be used because it is considered a “prohibited fuel.”<br /><br />The company asserted that it has the ability to separate out wood from other materials, and that this wood could be recycled into products suitable to be burned in wood stoves. The EPA denied the petition, and effectively bigbrothermandated that these materials be sent to landfills instead. In its denial, the EPA claimed that the cost to those like the petitioner to make “clean wood” fuels as requested would be expensive. “The EPA does not believe this cost on the industry is justified.” This, despite the fact that the costs would be borne by industry volunteers who believe they can product a product that meets the EPA’s standards.<br /><br />The EPA is saying, in essence, “we don’t believe you can, so we’re not going to let you try.”<br /><br />The regulation at issue is a long and complex, but a couple other areas are worth noting.<br /><br />If you manufacture a wood stove that is to be sold in Canada or Russia, the regulation does not affect you. “Affected wood heaters manufactured in the United States for export are exempt from the applicable emission limits.” So, the Canadians and Russians can get an affordable wood stove from a U.S. manufacturer, but a North Carolinian can only buy one that complies with the 83 page regulation which is further explained by the 203 page regulatory impact analysis.<br /><br />obama-fingerAccording to the EPA, the average price for a wood stove is $848. In its regulatory analysis the EPA noted that commenters had suggested that this regulation would increase the cost to bring a new model to market by up to 25% driving price well above $1,000.00. That is a significant increase that must be passed along to the homeowner in order for the manufacturer to survive as the EPA estimates that they have profit margins of a little over 4%.<br /><br />Representative David Rouzer of North Carolina has offered legislation which would repeal the wood stove regulation arguing, “The EPA has no business meddling with how wood heaters are made — much less putting in place new regulations that would effectively price them out of the market. More and more families are using wood heaters to help lower their energy costs during these tough economic times. &nbsp;That’s why, it’s imperative Congress continue working together to strike down these unnecessary regulations.”<br /><br />The regulation applies testing standards that must be met before any new wood stoves can be sold. Old wood stoves are not covered by the regulation, so if your house has an existing one you do not have to worry unless you need or want to replace it.<br /><br />Evidencing the EPA’s desire to micro-manage personal behavior, the regulation even places personal prohibitions on homeowners who use one of these new stoves. “No person is permitted to burn any of the following materials in an affected wood heater…. paper products…”<br /><br />There is an exception; you are allowed to use paper to start a fire. “The prohibition against burning these materials does not prohibit the use of fire starters made from paper.” If you use the paper to start a fire you are fine, but if the fire is already burning it is illegal for you to use paper any longer. While the EPA goes to great lengths to describe the emission standards, they do not provide any explanation as to the exact moment when the fire is large enough so that the continued use of paper to make the fire larger is prohibited. &nbsp;There are also BLOG-FIRE-bigstock-Fire-119560371restrictions on the types of wood homeowners can use. They “will be required to use only the grades of pellet fuels and wood chips that are included in the owner’s manual based on the heater/stove certification tests.”<br /><br />How prohibitions on homeowners regarding paper and wood are to be enforced is not exactly clear from the regulation, but expect the EPA to find a way.<br /><br />This whole thing is absurd. Federal government, leave our wood stoves alone.<br /><br /><a href="http://dailyhaymaker.com/?p=16553">SOURCE</a><br /><br />***************************************<br /><br /><i>For more postings from me, see &nbsp;<a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/">DISSECTING LEFTISM</a>, <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/">TONGUE-TIED</a>, <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com/">EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL</a>, <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/">POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH</a>, <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD &amp; HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> and <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/">AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</a>. Home Pages are &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.comuv.com/">here</a> or &nbsp; <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">here</a>. &nbsp;Email me (John Ray) <a href="mailto:jonjayray@hotmail.com">here</a>. &nbsp;</i><br /><br />Preserving the graphics: &nbsp;Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. &nbsp;But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. &nbsp;After that they no longer come up. &nbsp;From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. &nbsp;See &nbsp;<a href="http://jonjayra.com/burnside/grarc.html">here</a> or <a href="http://jonjayray.com/grarc.html">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************<br /><br /><br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0